Gain 5 IPCs if the Axis powers control at least three of the following territories:
Egypt, Trans-Jordan, France, and/or Gibraltar.You’re right, again. I apologize for the mistake. OK, so even if you control Gibraltar and Morocco, Italy could conceivably collect one of its NOs. That’s important, because it means that if you’re not at least trading France with the UK, then taking Egypt back from Italy is a 9-IPC swing. I would say that in roughly half of your games, you’re going to have an opportunity to retake Egypt a turn or two before you can wisely/safely start trading France, so that’s an important rule that makes fighting for Africa more attractive than I had originally realized.
I am glad I was able to clarify the Italian National Objectives. The $5 NO is very big for ‘little brother’ as that’s a 50% increase from their base income of 10 IPCs.
Surely you can further attack Russia underneath (sz16). That can wait until round 2 or so, once a few units have eliminated the UK forces in north Africa.
I don’t fully understand what you’re trying to say here. If you’re saying that Italy can use its Med fleet partly to ferry troops to Africa and partly to attack Russia, well, sure – but then your attack on Africa will be less effective. A full attack on Africa requires the use of at least one transport for at least three turns, so that you can ferry to Egypt, then ferry to Ethiopia, then ferry to South Africa. If you don’t have the transport available, your attack will be slower, and you’ll earn less income from your attack.
Along the lines of your summary below:
strategy of “send a small mission to Africa so that you can exploit any opportunities that arise there, but be ready to retreat at a moment’s notice, and keep an eye on the cost-benefit ratio”
If the allies do not move units into Algeria (or are not set up to do so), then the Axis do not need more than 2 turns of transports (Germany round 1, Italy round 1, Germany round 2, Italy round 2… maybe, maybe not)
I propose that NO German or Italian planes will be lost in Africa if a proper retreat is made.
I mean, possibly, if you are both skillful and lucky about your retreat.
A safe Axis retreat is not as difficult as you may deem. If the odds are against you holding, play safe, fall back either into Africa further or into Trans-Jordan on the way to pressuring Russia thru Persia. At the very least, you will now force Russian units to kill your African units. Not a good thing for the allies (or Russia).
It is interesting to see you try to put an exact cost on everything. There are the ‘costs’ of free/original units that are not costing a country anything further versus newly purchased/added units.
I certainly find it interesting! I acknowledge that all costs are only crude estimates, but I find that the effort of at least trying to put a numerical price on my tactics helps clarify my thinking. Thank you for helping me do that! As far as original units not ‘costing’ anything, I think that’s a more convincing argument when it comes to underpowered units like cruisers, or ill-placed units like the Australian destroyer. Sometimes a unit is comparatively useless, so any use you manage to put it to is ‘free’ relative to your (near-zero) opportunity cost of leaving it in place. However, the infantry, tanks, and planes that start in Europe (or could easily be evacuated to Europe from north Africa) are nowhere near useless – they’re perfectly useful for the Barbarossa (eastern Europe) campaign, and if you divert them away from Barbarossa campaign, you will feel the burn.
Hence it is very hard to accurately tally these costs/value of these units. When we think of the Med fleet, we look at how much damage it will do when it is destroyed. Will it cost the allies 3 planes? Perhaps a couple of destroyers and a plane? As the Axis, we want to make it as costly as possible, sometimes even moving a Japanese carrier into SZ15/SZ16 to help protect that fleet.
What are the allies going to be doing with their forces if they do not go into Africa? A defensive Germany can delay any effective D-Day for a few rounds.Well, that’s a fair point, but even if you don’t literally invade France, having extra infantry/transports available with which to threaten an early D-Day still forces Germany to garrison France (and NW Europe, and Italy, and the Baltic States, etc.), and that pulls troops from the eastern front, which allows Russia to make some favorable trades. One set of troops and transports that are focused and stockpiled in London can force Germany to defend four or five territories, which is very efficient for the Allies. Those same troops and transports committed to Africa and spread out across the African territories don’t require any particular German defense other than a token roadblock of 1 inf in Libya followed by 1 inf in Egypt.
True. You are describing the main issue that the allies are forced to overcome. How to help the Russians as quickly and efficiently as possible. Bringing the fight to the short lines of supply in western Europe might tie up some units, but are short term gains that the Germans can usually absorb moreso that the allies. If Japan flies some planes (2-4 fighters) to Europe by round 3 and 4, this greatly helps German fend off the usual KGF allies strategy employed.
My take is that a minimal investment by the axis can return much, especially early. It is THEN that these units can be brought back out of Africa if the allies have decided to not any units to this theatre.
That may be. The strategy of “send a small mission to Africa so that you can exploit any opportunities that arise there, but be ready to retreat at a moment’s notice, and keep an eye on the cost-benefit ratio” strikes me as way more useful than “send a steady stream of units to Africa because you can’t afford to lose it no matter what.” On the forums, I think I see people recommending the “win Africa at all costs” strategy, but maybe I’m just not picking up on the full context.
There are many variables at play, so strategic discussions on a grander scale often overlook some of the details you are bringing into the discussion.
WWII (and this game) was won based on mobility and reusability of resources. So tanks and planes are better than artillery and infantry. But you need some infantry to take the hits, so you can’t just buy all tanks and planes. So fighting Africa with tanks, fighters and transports are the most efficient way (for both sides). Why was Africa lost for Germany? Lack of resources, mainly due to no control of the Med. The European axis lost many, many men by NOT falling back via a safe retreat. Don’t make that mistake.
Thanks for having this debate with me! I am / have been really enjoying it. :-)
You’re welcome. I love talking strategy
