Kuni and Borsook, sorry boys those replies might fly in some lame university course, but they fail the test of time or in other words, they sound good today, but back then the world was different.
Yes the allies made some errors, rather big ones some times. But when the game is already defacto won, it isn't significant if you screw up the perfect ending.
Take for example the American disinterest in funnies on D-day, it came close to seriously damaging the fight. If Omaha had failed, it might have badly damaged chances for success. But here's the thing, Germany was already screwed in 44, so no matter how badly the Allies might mangled D-day, the Russians were still coming. It might have changed post war Europe, but Germany was done.
The war was decided in 41-42. Everything after that was a game that was already lost, and it was just about seeing how long the Germans and the Japanese could hold out.
Hitler's incredible successes, against a foe still fighting WW1, and against politicians spending all their time trying to avoid WW1 the rerun, were in so many cases not about military genius, but about a man that knew how to use words well. But he was a useless soldier, and he actually thought otherwise based on his early easy successes based on an opponent that was too uninterested to fight all out.
His biggest victories occurred BEFORE he attacked Poland. And they all worked to inflate his ego beyond his real worth. His generals caved in and started to believe him too.
I've played too many games of what if, where it was just a cold impersonal what if devoid of anything 'human' in the picture.
What if Germany attacks Russia immediately. What if Germany doesn't attack Russia at all. What if Germany refuses to attack till Germany is attacked first instead. What if Germany single mindedly attacks the the Mediterranean first. What if Germany assault France right at the beginning.
But those all require a game design, where the player is free to place all the available military resources as seen fit. Advanced Third Reich will permit this, but I can't think of any computer wargames at this moment that do. Limitations of selling a program that is fixed.
I have played games, where the player is given forces and a set up area and the placement is entirely the whim of the player. But these are usually tactical games. I'd love to try that with grand strategy. If they made SC3 like that, and made it essentially a Advanced Third Reich like experience, I'd drop 100 bucks on it in a heart beat.
I have World in Flames, nice board game, not the equal of my Advanced Third Reich (my opinion).
I have also seen the once upon a time computer version of World in Flames. I presume it has evolved a lot.
I'd rather they rebuild the old Third Reich pc game and make it computer Advanced Third Reich.
Granted, I have no idea who owns that game, but I would just call it SC3 and shamelessly make it an A3R clone.
The thing with simulating history, is you can't copy-write history. The units were where they were.
There will always be flights of fantasy that could have never been of course. Sealion is only good for long thread arguments and landing off the shores of the USA is even sillier. I generally won't waste my time playing any game that promotes that foolishness.
The Germans would not have needed to invade North America.
I have too many too complicated wargames, and not enough sufficiently interested non wargamer friends.