Germans in Africa

Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
132
Reaction score
0
Location
NYC
Country
llUnited States
First off - can SS units go to Africa freely as the Afrika Korps does? 2) Once the middle east has been conquered by the Germans, including Malta and Gib and Turkey, the restrictions on regular German army units going to Africa via air and sea are lifted, no? I'd think that would be the case and would be logical. Thoughts?
 

sapper32

Member
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
107
Reaction score
2
Location
warminster
Country
ll
My understanding of this is that only Africa Korps units are allowed unless Turkey is invaded by the Axis then German regular units can move there via Turkey and Syria,If there is no land route to North Africa ie Turkey would the Axis (Italy) have the shipping to realisticaly supply a large force across the Med??Maybe it would be a bit unrealistic afterall EA is supposed to simulate WWII in Europe
 

Heldenkaiser

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
1,366
Reaction score
8
Location
19th century
Country
llGermany
If there is no land route to North Africa ie Turkey would the Axis (Italy) have the shipping to realisticaly supply a large force across the Med??
Almost certainly not. But then seeing terrain and distances it's hardly credible either that a large force in North Africa should be supplyable over land from continental Europe. It's many a thousand miles through some of the most inhospitable terrain on earth. Road transport carries only so far, especially in these days. Railroads? One, I think, probably single-track and certainly easily interdicted. It's a stretch in any case. Most likely bordering on the impossible. My € .02. :)
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
132
Reaction score
0
Location
NYC
Country
llUnited States
True, but the key difference in this situation is that the Axis has conquered Malta, Gib, Egypt, AND all of North Africa -- thus giving the Axis almost unfettered reign on the sea lanes in the Med through which to transport and supply a huge army. That seems logical to me anyway... When the Axis does not control the ENTIRE med, then I'd agree with you.
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
5
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
This is from the Full Briefing and I'd stick by it:

..."Specifically

Only those German land and air units belonging to the 'Panzer Group Afrika' formation (sandy coloured for easy identification) may be moved by sea to North Africa and the Middle East, or be used to sea assault Mediterranean islands. German airborne/marine units may also assault the islands. If the islands are captured, regular German units may be shipped or flown to them to act as garrisons. Only one panzer corps ('Deutsche Afrika Korps') plus an HQ and some air units will be available initially, once Italy enters the war. Other 'Afrika' units will appear following the capture of the Mediterranean islands and ports, representing the improvement in supply and shipping range that would have resulted. Malta = one panzergrenadier corps and a motorised flak division; Gibraltar = one panzer corps; Crete = one motorised division; Cyprus = one motorised and one engineer division; and Alexandria = one infantry corps. They may also be used in Continental Europe if required.

The above restrictions don't apply to Germany's satellites and allies in the Mediterranean (see below), nor to regular German units which are able to move via Turkey into North Africa and the Middle East."

Capturing the various islands and ports listed above unlocks the various PGA units for use in North Africa, representing the benefit from the additional shipping/supplies/strategic ports/improved Italian cooperation, etc., that are considered to be supplying these extra units. The Axis player may still not ship standard German units. Remember that no such restriction applies to Gemany allies/satellites in the Mediterranean, principally the Italians. We found that allowing standard German units to move to the area just results in an enormous and unhistorical build-up, followed by the swamping of the Commonwealth forces there. An - in fact the only - alternative is for standard German forces to fight their way through Turkey (this risks triggering the USSR's TO to DoW Germany) and then down through the Levant. This is quite difficult given the size of the Turkish army, the difficult terrain, and potential Commonwealth and Soviet assistance. The supply situation would still have been very difficult, but I suppose that we're envisaging regular engineers and railway troops, the Organisation Todt and hapless forced Turkish labour improving the roads and railways behind the lines.

We had some very lengthy debates on this issue, and the abovementioned compromise was generally felt to be the most 'alternatively historical'.

If you really don't like it it's best to negotiate with your opponent first.
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
5
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
Then you're laughing: rail as many regular German units as you like through the Balkans, trans-ship at Istanbul, then rail through Asia Minor to however far forward you've pushed the repairs, and at full supply. However, although gaining control of the Suez Canal is a strategic option in itself, the really ambitious dream was to move into the Caucasus from Asia Minor, so you may just want to contain the Commonwealth forces in North Africa and go directly for the Soviet oilfields at Baku.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
132
Reaction score
0
Location
NYC
Country
llUnited States
I did - I took Baku and the Caucasus but couldn't win in Russia. I decided not to grind my army down so we came to a standstill on the Eastern front. The USSR had DoW'd on me so had been able to build up and eliminate the Barbarossa shock. The value of that shock can't be overstated.
 
Top