View Full Version : Axis troops in Africa
Axis can use in Africa Italian troops and only DAK for germans when Allies have no limitations and can deploy troops from Britain trhogh african continent!
It seems to be not well balanced because I suppose that it is a sort of "what if" scenario, so if Axis takes Malta e Gibrailtair, Europe Aflame shoud allow Germay to transport in North Africa paratroops, airborne, marines and a minum of "ordinary" troops in addition to DAK.
Bleuflag
Axis can use in Africa Italian troops and only DAK for germans when Allies have no limitations and can deploy troops from Britain trhogh african continent!
I don't know, I've won in the desert as the Allies and the Axis with the current limitations, as well as being fought to a standstill as the Axis.
As well, there are not all that many Brits, and, if you keep a sizable chunk of troops along the coast of Northern France, you can usually convince the Brit player to hold most of those troops in Britain to protect against Operation Sea Lion.
The whole point of the limitation was to avoid the obvious tactic that was employed in earlier versions with the German player knocking out France and then sending every single soldier they had to North Africa (historically unrealistic due to supply issues) to easily take Egypt and Iraq, and open up another entry route into the USSR.
Furthermore, Shane and I will be reviewing the limitations on the Axis in the desert when he has time.
It seems to be not well balanced because I suppose that it is a sort of "what if" scenario, so if Axis takes Malta e Gibrailtair, Europe Aflame shoud allow Germay to transport in North Africa paratroops, airborne, marines and a minum of "ordinary" troops in addition to DAK.
If you read the briefing you'll see that with the capture of Malta and Gibraltar you recieve a sandy coloured PzGren and Pz Corps, respectively. With the capture of Crete you get a Light Div, with the capture of Cyprus you get a Light Div and an Eng Div, and with the capture of Alexandria you get another Infantry Corps.
Keep in mind that Axis Paras and Marines can be used to assault the Med islands, just not go to NA.
Hope this was helpful,
Wyatt "Veers" Courtney
thanks for your reply.
I wanted highlighted that if Axis took Malta and Gibraltair, estern Mediteranean Sea become a "home" sea, as a lake, and it was easeier and safety move troops from Europe.
It is a "what if" approach.
Otherwise, for my point of view, Allies should suffer a similar limitation to trasport troops from britain.
Mark Stevens
23 May 07, 19:00
Not sure that I agree there. Britain had very extensive possessions/allies in the East (India, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Ceylon, etc.), the Japanese notwithstanding, and South (Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa & others) so the loss of Malta and Gibraltar - while serious - wouldn't have affected reinforcements and supplies from these areas, and in addition there was always the option of sending ships the long way round via the Cape. Alexandria was the main port and naval base in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The loss of Egypt and the Suez Canal would have been the decisive factor.
As Wyatt says, the Axis capture of the various islands, and of Gibraltar and Alexandria, mobilises more German units eligible to be transported to the Middle East, and may allow Arab and Iraqi revolts. The British Middle East formation reconstitutes in Cairo, and the Iraq/Persia formation in Baghdad, so if the Axis can take either of these it will stop those units reforming.
Finally, the Axis can ship unlimited Italian, Vichy French and Spanish units to the Middle East.
While you could argue for further changes or refinements, I think this does provide a reasonable 'alternative history' approach. After the Fall of France the British just won't have enough units to flood the Middle East if they want to defend the UK properly, and hang onto the Mediterranean islands, and beat the Italian Colonial formation in the Horn of Africa. Have you tried it?
Not sure that I agree there. Britain had very extensive possessions/allies in the East (India, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Ceylon, etc.), the Japanese notwithstanding, and South (Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa & others) so the loss of Malta and Gibraltar - while serious - wouldn't have affected reinforcements and supplies from these areas, and in addition there was always the option of sending ships the long way round via the Cape. Alexandria was the main port and naval base in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The loss of Egypt and the Suez Canal would have been the decisive factor.
Agreed.
Finally, the Axis can ship unlimited Italian, Vichy French and Spanish units to the Middle East.
Corect, though keep in mind garrison units are not really to leave their home country. (So Vichy French Garrison forces shouldn't really end up in Libya, for example). :laugh:
While you could argue for further changes or refinements, I think this does provide a reasonable 'alternative history' approach. After the Fall of France the British just won't have enough units to flood the Middle East if they want to defend the UK properly, and hang onto the Mediterranean islands, and beat the Italian Colonial formation in the Horn of Africa. Have you tried it?
A) I agree with Mark's comments.
B) Although, I thought I did a reasonable job, when I tried it, Mark. :laugh:
Still waiting on T3...
Check your pm's...
Thanks again for your explaination.
I still have to complaing that in this kind of scenario (that assumes a history change), if Axis has para, airborne or marine troops in Malta they cannot be deployed in Lybia.
Thanks again for your explaination.
I still have to complaing that in this kind of scenario (that assumes a history change), if Axis has para, airborne or marine troops in Malta they cannot be deployed in Lybia.
Well, you can always discuss variations on the House Rules with your opponent before you start a new game...
Killorbekilled
24 May 07, 12:00
I'm the Allied player in question fighting Blueflag in NA. I have to take the majority view here and stick with the rules as they stand now. I've won as much as I've lost in NA as the Axis so I think it's more a question of tactics than of math... But honestly, lately, as the Axis I've ignored the NA theater altogether and benifited from that - I've just dug in with the Italians already in theater and the Brits can't seem to make much headway... But what do I know?
Check your pm's...
Thanks for the update. :D
Thanks again for your explaination.
I still have to complaing that in this kind of scenario (that assumes a history change), if Axis has para, airborne or marine troops in Malta they cannot be deployed in Lybia.
Can you tell me why it is that you feel this way? What are your reasons for suggesting it?
I'm the Allied player in question fighting Blueflag in NA. I have to take the majority view here and stick with the rules as they stand now.
Agreed - when a game has begun, it is best to stick to the standard rules unless both players can agree on a change. These are issues that need to be worked out in advance, beofre you even do turn 1.
I've won as much as I've lost in NA as the Axis so I think it's more a question of tactics than of math... But honestly, lately, as the Axis I've ignored the NA theater altogether and benifited from that - I've just dug in with the Italians already in theater and the Brits can't seem to make much headway... But what do I know?
Really? Do you already have considerable extra forces in the area?
But honestly, lately, as the Axis I've ignored the NA theater altogether and benifited from that - I've just dug in with the Italians already in theater and the Brits can't seem to make much headway... But what do I know?
The one time I fought to a stalemate in NA that is exactly what I did. I dug in opposite El Alamein and stood.
I guess that would depend on if the Brits bring alot of extra uits into the theatre or not. I've never had much trouble wiping the Italians right off the map if they are not reinforced, but then again, there's usually considerably more Brits here by this time than just the starting forces.
Killorbekilled
29 May 07, 16:28
Agreed - when a game has begun, it is best to stick to the standard rules unless both players can agree on a change. These are issues that need to be worked out in advance, beofre you even do turn 1.
Really? Do you already have considerable extra forces in the area?
I may bring in some Italian infantry to bolster the defenes there, but I may even abandon NA altogether - that theater is only a side show for the Axis in my view. If the Axis can knock out the Russians and the Continental Europeans before the Americans and Brits have time to build up enough of a counter force i.e. by the end of 1942 at the latest, then as the Axis player, if I've lost NA because I've used those units to help win my war in Russia, once I've taken all of Europe, I will begin to take NA moving in from the middle east at my leisure. What I try not to do is let the NA theater be a distraction in terms of time, men, and materiel...
This is very true, and has been the end of many a would-be general.
At the same time, the contrary can also prove to be true. If you can take the entire place prior to war with the Russians, and can do so without great cost in terms of men and materiel, then letting the Brits and Yanks eat it back up later in the war gives them something to do (when you are too busy with Russia to deal with them). This can (sometimes!) buy you the valuable time you require to finish taking Moscow, Leningrad & Stalingrad.
But your point remains valid - losing sight of the 'bigger picture', and getting caught up in the side-shows can spell disaster. But there are grand opportunities there as well, if a general is patient and clever enough to exploit them!
Killorbekilled
01 Jun 07, 08:05
True - if your Allied opponent allows himself to be distracted in NA (or wherever else) that's something to be exploited. But that's not something I'd count on - especially up against a seasoned player...
That's also a good point.
But sometimes, as an Allied player, you don't really have any choice except to recreate Torch. I've had games where the US enters, and you get your 3 new units, and there is no chance in hades that you can attempt a landing in France. It might be too early, you might require more transport points be available (roughly a year after the US enters, if memory serves), etc.
Sometimes, the choices are Torch or nothing...
And momentum can be a difficult thing to stop once it's started. Another pitfall, but success tends to be fed. And let us not forget the strategic implications of taking the entire place as the Axis:
- Each and every 'strategic' location (Gibraltar, Malta, Crete, etc) gives you 'free' additional Axis unit(s) that can be sent to Africa, making the job easier. And you're adding strength to Africa that is not coming out of your continental forces. Always a good thing, if you can manage it.
- Taking several of these spots lowers Allied supply (and in some cases, increases Axis supply). This can have some fairly serious repercussions on the battle for Russia, as your units will recover even faster, while theirs will recover even slower. It's not huge, but it certainly doesn't hurt.
- A new path into Russia. This can quite easily lead to Baku, Maikop, Grozny... This will net you Turkey, large amounts of advanced armor & equipment (possibly years ahead of what you currently have) and a couple or three actual units composed of said equipment. That SS Panzer you get is truly awesome, especially if you get it early.
And lets not forget that the above can also lead to the death of the Reds themselves, if they cannot respond to the additional avenue of attack, the new equipment, units, or a combination of all three.
So while I heartily agree with you that N. Africa can quite easily morph the inexperienced Axis general into 'Sideshow Bob', likewise can the experienced Axis general point to N. Africa and say that it was one of the first steps in a chain that led to total victory.
(As a sidenote - Everytime I have defeated Russia (so far - I had a point to prove for awhile there :D ), I have come heavily from Persia, and enabled all the above effects. This also came with complete conquest of N. Africa, of course - I needed something to do after France, but prior to Russia).
Query:
item: US entry
Has anyone played the game as < send US reinforcements 'around the Cape' to the Suez and work from there as a limited thrust while pounding on the atlantic coastline of europe by air?
Or is Mark's game THAT significantly different?
I could see 'Uncle Joe' being pissed w/ no second front, but how does the game feel about it?
Mark Stevens
02 Jun 07, 05:57
Physically possible, provided that the Allies still hold the Middle East. It would take a great deal of time to move the bulk of the US forces to the area round the Cape - provided they hold Gibraltar and Malta it would be quicker to use that route.
And what's the longer term objective? It would secure the southern flank of the USSR, but there isn't an option for the Allies to attack Turkey so, having secured the Middle East, you still have to use those extra US forces against the Mediterranean: sea landings are difficult and the terrain (Greece, Italy, the Balkans) isn't easy. Landing in Spain would bring them in as an Axis satellite ally.
The historical US plan is probably best - land in France and smash your way over relatively open country by the shortest route to the heart of Germany.
But you can try out alternatives, that's what the scenario's for.
I think that perhaps an Allied option to attack Turkey should be present. Sometimes, this is the best/only way to secure a path into continental Europe. Maybe appears sometime after the US joins?
Can you tell me why it is that you feel this way? What are your reasons for suggesting it?
ok, then, what is the reason why, once captured Malta and Gibraltair, Axis troops in Malta (especially airborne and marine) cannot be transported in North Africa?
This is a limitation to scenario flexibility that helps Allies
.. and, for info, I'm playing another EA game, where I'm taking all Africa and Middle Est in Axis side without any para or marine additiona troops but it is not fair.
Killorbekilled
21 Jun 07, 22:07
I think that perhaps an Allied option to attack Turkey should be present. Sometimes, this is the best/only way to secure a path into continental Europe. Maybe appears sometime after the US joins?
I agree - I'm all for an Allied Invasion option of Turkey. Fun, fun!
Killorbekilled
19 Feb 08, 21:07
That's also a good point.
But sometimes, as an Allied player, you don't really have any choice except to recreate Torch. I've had games where the US enters, and you get your 3 new units, and there is no chance in hades that you can attempt a landing in France. It might be too early, you might require more transport points be available (roughly a year after the US enters, if memory serves), etc.
Sometimes, the choices are Torch or nothing...
And momentum can be a difficult thing to stop once it's started. Another pitfall, but success tends to be fed. And let us not forget the strategic implications of taking the entire place as the Axis:
- Each and every 'strategic' location (Gibraltar, Malta, Crete, etc) gives you 'free' additional Axis unit(s) that can be sent to Africa, making the job easier. And you're adding strength to Africa that is not coming out of your continental forces. Always a good thing, if you can manage it.
- Taking several of these spots lowers Allied supply (and in some cases, increases Axis supply). This can have some fairly serious repercussions on the battle for Russia, as your units will recover even faster, while theirs will recover even slower. It's not huge, but it certainly doesn't hurt.
- A new path into Russia. This can quite easily lead to Baku, Maikop, Grozny... This will net you Turkey, large amounts of advanced armor & equipment (possibly years ahead of what you currently have) and a couple or three actual units composed of said equipment. That SS Panzer you get is truly awesome, especially if you get it early.
And lets not forget that the above can also lead to the death of the Reds themselves, if they cannot respond to the additional avenue of attack, the new equipment, units, or a combination of all three.
So while I heartily agree with you that N. Africa can quite easily morph the inexperienced Axis general into 'Sideshow Bob', likewise can the experienced Axis general point to N. Africa and say that it was one of the first steps in a chain that led to total victory.
(As a sidenote - Everytime I have defeated Russia (so far - I had a point to prove for awhile there :D ), I have come heavily from Persia, and enabled all the above effects. This also came with complete conquest of N. Africa, of course - I needed something to do after France, but prior to Russia).
Well in the end the Allies re-took NA so it did turn out to have been a mistake for the Axis. So when are you going to give me a game of EA?
When I can start playing again, which hopefully will not be too long. :laugh:
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.