Axis and Allies Custom Map - Operation Sealion

Last year a friend of mine gave me a free copy of A&A 1941 after I said it looked like an interesting game. So me and some college buddies had been playing it consistently for about a semester when we decided we wanted to take it to the next level. We purchased A&A 1940 Pacific and Europe and ever since we've been hooked on the franchise.

A&A can sometimes take many hours to play and isn't usually fun when you only have 2 or 3 people playing. So I proposed to my friends that we look into the smaller games like D-Day, Bulge, or Guadalcanal. I watched a few people play it and they didn't look too bad but seemed like they were definitely for beginners but what we wanted was a smaller game that could fit 2 players and take only 2-3 hours while not surrendering game play toughness and strategy. I also didn't feel like paying $70+ for a game. So I began looking into building my own custom map.

Beginning setup

Close up of the channel 

Note the railroad system in England

The English can make an easy jump from Kent to Calais

The latter end of the game where Germany slowly pushes it's way in from the West

I took several old game boards, covered the old game background with black paper and then blank white paper. A scenario I thought would be cool was Operation Sealion, the proposed German invasion of England in 1940. I looked at several maps of England and France and decided the map could accommodate Northern France and southern England. I traced out regions in both countries to the best of my abilities and tried to give both nations approximately the same amount of territory while still being historically accurate. Instead of coloring them in fully I just bolded the borders with each nation's respective color (Green for Germans - Red for British). I also colored in the channel and boxed off seazones. The only 2 regions in mainland Europe that aren't controlled by the Germans are Luxembourg and Switzerland. However, they are both pro-allied neutrals.

Scenario and Rules: The objective of the game is for the Germans to capture London or for the British to capture German Occupied Paris. The rules are basically the same as the rest of the A&A games with a few new perks added. To make the game go faster and to make it more historically accurate I introduced railroad networks. For example, a rail system goes from the Rhineland, through Paris, and up to Lower Normandy. The advantage of this is that any unit that is moving from a territory with a railroad and is going into another territory with a railroad gets +1 movement for either combat or non-combat moves. So an infantry unit moving from Dover to London can move 2 spaces instead of the usual 1 as long as it stays on the railroad path. Now, the railroads are permanent, can't be destroyed, and nor can you build new ones. I also thought it would be appropriate to add pillboxes to make coastal defense stronger. Pillboxes can only defend and they can't be moved. They have a defense of 2 and a cost of 3 but can only be built on coastal territories. In a sense they are actually worse than infantry in terms of strategic value and economics but add a nice element to a game that in centered around coastal defense and amphibious assault. However, most players probably won't buy more pillboxes once they are destroyed. Also, the Germans get to call in 3 paratrooper drops throughout each game. One drop is one paratrooper that can land on any coastal territory. More paratroopers cannot be purchased. The advantage is that paratroopers have 2 attack instead of the usual 1 and obviously do not require a transport to move. Lastly, the purchasing scheme is the same as all the other game with the addition of pillboxes.

Balance: Germany starts out ready for the offensive with more infantry, bombers, and transports but less economic power. England has a larger Navy and more fighters. England also has 5 factories while Germany only has 3 and most are away from the coast (factories can't be moved, built, or destroyed). In the game their are also naval ports and airports which allow those units to move +1 spaces. Also, if Britain keeps all of it's original territory they get 5 bonus production points at the collection stage of their turn. I call it the Lend-Lease National Objective. Germany's national objective is called the Clear Channel. If all British naval units are gone from the game then Germany naval units can move +1 spaces and an extra infantry unit in Normandy (not exclusive to one turn). I ran several simulations to make sure the fighting and economics were equal but had to factor in geography and unit placement.

Starting production:
Germany - 29
Britain - 32

Germany:
seazone 2 - 2 submarines
seazone 4 - 1 transport
seazone 9 - 1 transport
seazone 11 - 2 destroyers
seazone 10 - 2 transports
seazone 23 - transport & battleship
Upper Normandy - 4 bombers/1 infantry
Lower Normandy - 4 infantry/1 tank/ 1 fighter
Reven - 2 fighters/1 infantry/3 tanks
Rhineland - 1 infantry/1 tank
Calais - 1 bomber/1 fighter/2 infantry
Ilse of France - 6 infantry/1 fighter/1 tank

Britiain:
seazone 7 - 1 submarine/1 aircraft carrier
seazone 13 - 1 submarine/1 transport/1 battleship
seazone 18 - 1 destroyer/1 submarine
seazone 26 - 1 battleship/2 transports/1 destroyer
Cheshire - 1 infantry
Dorset - 1 tank/2 infantry/2 fighters
Hampshire - 2 fighters/1 infantry
Surrey - 2 tanks/1 fighter/1 infantry
Kent - 4 infantry
Essex - 1 tank
Suffolk - 1 bomber/1 infantry/2 tanks

Testing: So far I have played one game and I plan on playing many more once this college semester starts. I played as Germany and my cousin played as Britain. Since I'm the much more experienced player I played on the harder side. I wanted the game to be setup so Germany was on the offensive and Britain on the defensive but Britain did actually take Calais for atleast 2 turns. I'm guessing I will have to tweak the amount of starting units in order to make it more balanced. What I have noticed is that at the beginning of the game both sides try and destroy each others navy before attempting any amphibious assaults. Both sides start with several transports (Germany more) but they are vulnerable to air attacks which is why air units play another important role. Germany tries to invade around Dorset or Devon which starts out with almost no defenses but from there it a long way to London. We started at midnight and ended around 3 am with Germany winning but it wasn't easy.

Conclusion: Really excited to play this game but still needs to be tested. I want to make other ones too including Stalingrad, the Siege of Bastogne, and maybe an alternative scenario where Germany invades Washington, D.C. Any suggestions will help!

Swiss K31 Gun Review

Here is my gun review of the Swiss K31 Rifle. Check it out!

Understanding the Greek Debt Crisis

First off, most people don't realize that Greece is not a first world country. While one of the founding civilizations of the world and the birth place of the West, Greece has almost no middle class, a fairly corrupt government, and a bloated public sector economy. According to the Index of Economic Freedom, with a freedom score of 54, Greece's economic health is on par with Russia, India, Egypt, Brazil, and most African countries. The only other European countries that ranked lower overall than Greece was Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus (who's really surprised there?). Greece scored surprisingly high on trade freedom but that's about it. The country scored extremely poor on property rights, freedom from corruption, and financial freedom. For the world average Greece is fairly typical but for a European country this is extremely below the standard. 

Reality Check: So for all of you kids out there screaming that unchecked capitalism is destroying Greece, it is actually fairly socialist for a European country which isn't saying much. 

So Greece entered into EU in 2001 and adopted the Euro as it's currency and subsequently obtained access to really inexpensive loans, which mainly came from Germany. Because it now had access to the European Central Bank and the IMF it symbolically became a first world country without actually being one in anyway. Sort of like lipstick on a pig. The other problem, which isn't necessarily unique to Greece, is that it's a social democratic country with high volume social welfare programs, an extremely early retirement age, and bloated pension programs. Most people hope to retire at the age of 50 on a good government pension but with a low population growth rate way below the replacement rate there is no way it could even be sustainable. In addition, they have generous retirement pensions but no one to replace the people putting into the system. Even in developed countries that have similar retirement pensions programs with high birth and replacement rates, retirement at the age of 65 is even unrealistic, let alone 50. Even in the US with SS, medicare, medicaid, and other safety net programs many people still work well into their 70's.

In fact, this is what happens with pay-as-you go pension systems. They are essentially Ponzi Schemes where the government takes your money and gives it to someone else right away that is collecting retirement and you hope that 50 years down the road that the government doesn't run out of other people's money to pay for your retirement. Well that is what is happening with Greece's pension program (Italy is soon to follow). Even if you support some sort of government run pension program, the pension programs in Greece wouldn't even make normal sense to most people but that is the nature of the welfare state. So again, starting in 2001 Greece gets access to billions of dollars in interest free loans. You get good pensions, retire early, and simply put, the government couldn't sustain it.

Now, why would the EU let Greece come in, in the first place? European countries have vast differing economies, levels of growth, languages, cultures, and then suddenly the post-war European community wants to become a single monetary unit without a single government over them. It's doomed to fail but it's this belief in European unity and how could they do this without the symbolic ancient seat of democracy that is Greece. Letting them enter was more fantasy then anything else. Completely disregard fiscal sanity.

Now the economic idea behind letting them join the EU was to jump start their economy with huge low-interest loans. This would create artificial demand sort of like a Marshall Plan that was applied to Greece. Isn't this how Germany and others countries recovered after WWII? As the narrative goes, giant loans and resources pumped into the heart of European countries devastated by half a decade of total war would create artificial demand and temporary jobs that would get the continent back on it's pre-war knees. This is the soul of Keynesianism and the economic strategy employed in many developed countries. However, we tend to forget that Germany had many of good economic institutions already in place that helped them recover such as strong banks, a huge industrial base, and many trade opportunities. Also, we forget that Germany was also loaded with something called Germans who are an industrious people who historically have strong work ethic. Greece is a different culture that maybe doesn't have that historically strong working populace and industrious fervor. Does that mean Greeks are lazy? Of course not, but they need to change their state of mind if they want to get out of their current mess.

The other question is, do the Greeks deserve the blame or do others? Did they create this problem and are they on the hook for it? Mostly yes but not all the way. If you think about it on the micro-level then imagine that someone lends you money and you agree to the terms then you have an obligation to pay it back. However, if the lender knows you can't pay it back and won't then the lender is also on the hook for making a more than poor calculated risk. When you loan money you determine an interest rate depending on how risky the loan is and these massive deals with Greece were at almost zero percent interest with a high probability of not being able to pay them back. Now I suppose European lenders knew this but decided that maybe the Greek economy would magically jumpstart or it would delay the inevitable. Or maybe they live in this collective delusion that if they keep bailing out Greece that it will prevent their economy from collapsing. Delay the inevitable but it is not avoidable.

Personally, I would hold the EU responsible for letting Greece in the EU in the first place but at the same time Greece needs to change it's behavior and drastically "de-socialize" their economy. In the end someone is going to have to lose and dramatic changes will have to be made.

Sources:

http://www.heritage.org/index/heatmap
The Eric Metaxas Show - Jay Richards and the Debt Crisis, July 4, 2015
Coffee and Markets Podcast - Desperate Times in Greece After No Vote On Bailout Terms - July 6, 2015

Psychological Egoism

What is Psychological Egoism?

It's the idea that all human actions or motives are inherently self-interested even when performing acts of altruism. This is also an empirical claim about human motives and not what they ought to be. Not all self-interested actions are good or moral but they definitely can be if all human actions are self-motivated.

For example, you see a homeless man on the street, you don't like seeing the homeless suffer, you give him food and water, and while you help the man you are ultimately doing this to make yourself feel better. Helping others in such ways is ultimately motivated by some form of self-interest, such as non-sensory satisfaction, the expectation, the desire to gain respect or reputation, or for religious satisfaction. The helpful action is merely instrumental to these ultimately selfish goals.

Another example is when someone is drowning or in a car accident. We want to help this person drowning because there comes into play unconscious fear regarding our own safety. The suffering of another person is felt as a threat to our own happiness and sense of safety, because it reveals our own vulnerability to misfortunes, and thus, by relieving it, one could also ameliorate those personal sentiments or if they are someone related to us and not helping them could damage our happiness.

"Further, humans are not motivated to strictly avoid pain and only pursue pleasure, but, instead, humans will endure pain to achieve the greatest net pleasure. Accordingly, all actions are tools for increasing pleasure or decreasing pain, even those defined as altruistic and those that do not cause an immediate change in satisfaction levels." An example of this is the long-term benefits of  voluntary childbirth and raising a family.

This is also relatable to Adam Smith's Invisible Hand Argument that says self-interest in economic terms is not only good for yourself but ultimately good for the well-being of the community. Smith comes from an ethical egoism perspective where he never says that all human action is self-interested but we ought to be; at least in economic circumstances.

Some criticisms include that it's non-falsifiable, that it's an over examination of human motives and that people can be selfless and helpful just for the sake of being of selfless and helpful, and that if all people are self-interested then that takes away from someone's free will.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Psychological_egoism
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/jcanders/Ethics/egoismhandout.htm
http://www.iep.utm.edu/psychego/
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWEB/ETEXTS/ETHICS/Chapter_5_Teleological_Theories_Egoism/Psychological_Egoism.htm

The Swiss Story During WWII

While down in North Carolina last week I purchased a Swiss K31 Rifle which are a popular military surplus rifle in the US at the moment. They're not just popular because they are affordable at around $300 a piece or because they are good survivalist guns but because, like everything else the Swiss made, they are extremely well built. In addition, they were very well taken care of, known for there accuracy and stability, had revolutionary straight pullback action technology (which increased the shooter's rate of fire relative to bolt action rifles of the time), and were physically good looking rifles. Historically, Swiss rifles have always been higher quality than there European counterparts, much like Swiss knifes, chocolate, watches, standard of living, and so on. Which brings me to another aspect of Swiss life they are known for. Their neutrality.

Straight Pull Back Action and 1500m Sights

Made from beech wood 

After purchasing any military surplus rifle, I like to research the history behind the weapon and what makes it unique. Like I said before, Swiss rifles are usually better in many aspects than their European counterparts but interestingly enough most of these rifles have never even seen combat but we assume they would perform well in the battlefield. So I began looking into the Swiss politics of warfare and international politics of the Great War and WWII era. 

The Great War: The Swiss situation from 1914 to 1918 wasn't that interesting nor was it completely a troubling time for the government. While most Swiss were German speaking, they weren't ready to get involved with either the central or entente powers since they had such a strong national identity. Also, both alliances relied on Swiss financial institutions which put the Swiss in a positive position following the conflict. However, when war did break out the Swiss did pursue armed neutrality and mobilized roughly 250,000 volunteers just in case trench warfare spilled over into Switzerland. By 1915, the government realized it would be unlikely for any power to make a move through Switzerland and their mobilized numbers dropped to 38,000 and then to 12,500 by 1918.

Despite never being directly involved, Switzerland did actually play an important part in the outcome of the war. It became a safe haven for many refugees, artists, intellectuals, socialists, and deserters. Vladimir Lenin actually lived in exile in Switzerland until 1917 when the Germans paid for him to be shipped to Russia as a public dissenter. Which of course played a major role in the Russian Revolution and the foundation of the Soviet Union. Other than that it was business as usual in Switzerland.

WWII and the National Redoubt: Now this is where it gets more interesting. Again, war breaks out in Europe and Switzerland goes into armed neutrality but with a pro-allied mood. The Swiss government starts building what is called the "National Redoubt" (started in 1880 but small scale) which was a series of fortifications along the east/west side of the Alps. The idea was to abandon the main heartland of Switzerland and only defend key railroad and communication centers which were spread out in the Alps, a natural defense line. The invading army would have to fight it's way through rough terrain, high altitudes in cold weather, and extremely fortified lines of defense. This way the government could hold onto to some territory if an invasion occurred. The retreating Swiss army would blow up key bridges, mountain passes, and railroad/communication centers. The end goal was to deter the enemy and cause the invading army so much damage and so many casualties that any such operation would not be beneficial or strategically practical (Hitler had a similar idea near the late end of the war called the "Alpine Fortress" in Southern Germany where core SS units would fight a guerrilla war but it never materialized). The redoubt was manned by 8 infantry divisions and 3 mountain brigades.

The 3 lines of defense in the Swiss Alps as part of the National Redoubt

Operation Tannenbaum: After the fall of France in 1940, the situation became more drastic for the Swiss. Unlike the First World War where Switzerland was not surrounded by one alliance or another, suddenly found themselves surrounded by unfriendly forces. At this point, the National Redoubt plan was fully implemented and the bulk of the army abandoned the Swiss borders and within 3 days the entire military was mobilized. Prior to the war, Hitler promised Switzerland's neutrality in the event of war but later said it was the "pimple of Europe" and considered them broken away Germans that had no right to be independent. While, it was not in Germany's interest to invade Switzerland at this point of the war or in any other point of the war, they did draw up invasion plans in 1940 called Operation Tannanbaum. The plan called for 21 German divisions to occupy the heartland accompanied by 15 Italian Divisions. They would either ignore the Swiss Alps or hope to draw them out. Once Switzerland was occupied, they planned on bringing the population back into the German fold as being racially suitable Aryans. More detailed plans were drawn up on how it would be split between Germany and Italy and how annexation would work. The invasion was never carried out and no one is really sure but probably had to do with the fact that it was not immediately necessary at the time and it would have been costly for the invaders with estimates as high as 500,000 casualties. Also, any invasion would have prompted destruction of vital railways that Germany frequently used.

Modern remnants of some of the fortifications

Swiss Rifleman in WWII

Remainder of the War: During the invasion of France, Germany violated Swiss airspace 197 times and as a result the Swiss shot down 17 Luftwaffe pilots. In response, Germany sent a team of saboteurs to destroy Swiss airfields but they were captured by the Swiss before any damage could be done. Later on in the war, the Swiss would intercept both allied and axis planes who violated their airspace. Over 940 allied pilots were interned in Swiss ski resorts throughout the war. Many allied pilots would've rather faced Swiss internment than get shot down in Axis territory. By 1944 the US State Department secured the release of most of the downed pilots even though most had escaped into liberated France. In addition, German and Swiss soldiers engaged in light border skirmishes throughout the war.

Economics: During the German occupation of Europe, most traded goods came from Germany and Italy (importation of 10,267,000 tons of coal or 41% of Swiss energy requirements from Germany). Since they were dependent on Axis trade, they entered in economic cooperation with Germany. They also exported dairy goods, watches, jewelry, and tools to Germany. This also included extending limited credit to the Third Reich and allowing Germany to freely use Swiss railroad infrastructure that linked Germany and Italy together. Between 1940 and 1945, Germany sold large amounts of gold to the Swiss National Bank in exchange for Swiss Francs (1.3 billion Francs worth of gold) which could be used by Germany to purchase raw materials from other neutral countries. Some of the gold sold to Switzerland during the war included war plunder from holocaust victims and former reserves from occupied countries. This of course became controversial for Switzerland after the war and several lawsuits have been brought up since then. Many claim that trade cooperation and credit extensions prolonged the war. However controversial, most trade was out of necessity if Switzerland wanted to maintain it's independence and in total Swiss/Germany trade only accounted for .05% of Germany's war effort. Switzerland did however face many economic shortages during the war due to not being able to freely trade. 

Regardless of some Nazi sympathizers in the Swiss armed forces and refusal to allow allied bombers to use Swiss airspace, I think their quickness to mobilize forces and a well thought out contingency plan is really interesting. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had Germany invaded Switzerland and how it would have effected other campaigns they fought in terms of reduced man power and resources. Even though Switzerland is not in danger of being invaded today, they still carry on many citizen/military traditions that set them apart from other European countries. For example, every citizen goes through mandatory military and firearms training and in some cantons able bodied citizens may keep a military issued rifle stored in their house if they wish. In the event of a national crisis, each member of the citizen militia would grab their household weapon and head meet up with their regiments. Every year, their is mandatory firearms training and range practice is often encouraged at the many government sponsored shooting ranges. The Swiss certainly have an interesting sense of nation identity and patriotic duty.

Swiss shooters at the traditional Ruetlischiessen Compeition

Sources: 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/05/daniel-zimmerman/gun-review-k31-schmidt-rubin-rifle/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Redoubt_(Switzerland)
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/25/world/swiss-reveal-secret-world-their-defense-from-nazis.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_during_the_World_Wars
http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/switzerland-second-world-war-ii.html
http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

Has the Boy Scouts of America Gone Soft?

Today I read an article in the Washington Times (link below) about the BSA banning water gun fights under the premise that it simulates pointing a firearm at somebody. If someone wanted to shoot a water gun then they would have to shoot at a designated target and be wearing eye protection. Now, I understand the importance of not aiming a gun at somebody and they do drill gun safety into your head but taking some things to these extremes is a little asburd. It makes the BSA look like they are trying to be too protective but these kinds of rules do little to improve actual safety.

Water guns aren't the only thing. For example, sports such as contact football and shooting high caliber rifle rounds are not technically allowed either. Now it's understandable if you don't want some 13 year old kid shooting a 30-06 or driving around in an ATV but you can prevent one person from doing this without preventing, lets say a 17 year member of the troop from partaking in it. Of course, every troop breaks many of these strict "corporate" guidelines mainly because they are easy to get around or non-enforceable especially if you're not around other troops. When I was in scouts we never had water gun fights but we definitely played tackle football, shot all kinds of weapons, and did things that were considered more rugged but we were safe about it. While some of these activities are banned more or less, other equally dangerous activities such as rock climbing and snowboarding are completely encouraged. Which they should be. That's the whole point of growing up, learning to push you beyond your mental and physical limits, and unfortunately in the process you will get hurt somehow. 

Here is a list of other activities or items that scouting has banned:

- Boomerangs

- Potato guns

- Marshmallow shooters

- Boxing and any type of martial arts

- Football

- Laser tag 

- Parsailing

- All Terrain Vehicles

- Shooting high caliber rounds

- Chainsaws

For those of you who don't know, the Scouting Movement has its origins as a para-military organization and was founded by Lord Baden-Powell, a British officer who was involved in several military campaigns in South Africa in the late 19th Century, who noticed that many young men lacked essential outdoor survival skills. While Powell was completely against the idea of having the scouting movement be a pool that the military could dip its hand into and pullout fighters when they were needed we can assume that he probably wouldn't be okay with how bureaucratic scouting has become. Of course, Scouting in the early 20th Century had its share of problems such as segregation within troops, pacifistic elements versus more militaristic ones, and religious differences within the movement. Many LDS and Catholic boys were only allowed to join troops that were led by individuals of their respective religions as it was considered a protestant leaning organization at first.

None the less, the Scouting movement has played an important role in American culture with many of the countries top businessmen and politicians coming out of this movement. Unfortunately it has become so politicized that many complain that you can't have "fun" anymore. Honestly though, this is a much bigger problem than just scouting. It's the culture and every institution changes with the culture. 

My grandfather was telling me about the time when he was going through his initiation with the Order of the Arrow back in the 1940's where they dropped him off in the middle of the California woods with a knife and a compass and he had to survive for 3 days by himself. We can probably assume those days aren't coming back but this doesn't mean you can't still have fun. It really all comes down to your peers, your troop, and who your leaders are. When I was in the scouts we did a great deal of things that most people will never get to do. I hiked Gettysburg Battlefield, the C&O Canal, parts of the Appalachian Trail, and countless other places in Virginia and the surrounding states. Visited Pittsburgh, New York City, and Philadelphia all for the first time. Learned how to woodwork, iron work, track and trap animals, load and shoot muskets, and partook in many engineering projects. We built rope bridges, skinned and tanned animals hides, learned many aspects of wilderness survival, and visited countless historical sites across America.

So for some of the unnecessary things that sometime come out of scouting there are also many aspects that are still great that are sometimes overlooked. 

Sources:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/19/boy-scouts-of-america-bans-water-gun-fights/

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/GSS/gss08.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America

So I have to admit personal blogs don't get much attention and unless your well known it can be difficult to get a strong following. With that being said, I don't really expect many people to read my posts. However, there are different reasons for having one. 

First, I do a good deal of political and economic talk and most of this is done on Facebook. While it is easier and there is more back and forth conversation, you can alienate a lot of people and friends who aren't exactly interested in hearing your opinions or find your constant posts obnoxious. Also, blog writing is a good way to go into deeper detail than you could on Facebook without making it look like your writing a novel. Cultivating your writing skills is another important aspect of it. Going stale on writing is never a good idea, especially if you plan on going onto a professional career. In addition, it's a good way to organize your thoughts and to use as a future reference point. 

Enjoy!