Africa: Holy Grail or Waste of Resources?

[jdobbs]

Guten Taag,

This is my first thread/post on this forum so I'd like to begin it a little more formal than perhaps I'll eventually slump into by the end of this post, however I'd just like to say hello to you all and I hope you're all doing well.

Now anyway lads on with the topic, (formality lasted long didn't it)- I thought through-out HOI3 Africa was a waste of time tbh. It's like yeah it was there but in reality only a little bit of Libya mattered and that could be tied down with about 6 divisions and the AI would do jack all but sit on a cucumber about it for the rest of the game. Apart from literally being land it served no strategic purpose in the game. Surely there should be some sort of colonial pride modifier or something like that... Even the resources were pointless as it was unclear to your production if they were even modelled in correctly. Those playing as the Belgium would have known in TFH that is was hard to make any money even though you had vast amounts of resources and so had no thought saying going along the lines of 'ah well at least I have the Congo'. I know the developers are stripping the already baby Bourne esq economy mechanic but please can they put some sort of importance on Africa resource and strategic wise (to both the AI and the Human) because I'd rather not send reinforcements that could have been used on the Eastern front over to defend Tobruk.

All replies are welcome and even though this is my entrance don't hesitate on slander. If you've got something to say the Internet is there to listen.

 

[rossBurglar]

If you defend Tobruk and Bengazi there won't be British soldiers on Sicily?

 

[sic96]

i think its the same case of norway, IRL both scenarios had strategic importance, in norway case, taken away by the fall of france, but in the african side, an energic decision and better coordination over the Mediterranean strategy could be a turning point for the axis powers, i hope pdx bring this to HOI.

 

[Secret Master]

In TFH, if I am in the Allies, I don't want the Congo to fall if I'm researching nukes. Admittedly, that's not the most exciting reason, but it is one.

North Africa is a whole other ballgame. In fairness to HOI3, Italian Libya wasn't the most economically important colonial empire in the period. Securing Libya (and wiping out Italian forces in the region so they could not be withdrawn and used later) was more a matter of removing pressure from Malta and Egypt, not about securing vital resources. Also, securing North Africa opened the way to attacking Italy proper. And it fulfilled Churchill's desire to strike at the "soft underbelly" without launching a continental invasion.

I'm not sure how to make North Africa important without forcing players to think like Mussolini, Churchill, or various French leaders.

 

[Porkman]

He has a point. For one, the fight in East Africa is far too inconsequential. That actually did occupy the attention of both the British and the Italians for a time before being overshadowed by North Africa. Also, if East Africa falls, then there's the potential for a linkup with the Japanese who could then use bases on the Horn of Africa.

I'd want an Italian National focus that prioritizes Africa.

As to the rest of Africa, there were important things going on there. The tug of war between Vichy and Free French forces, the invasion of Madagascar, there was stuff happening and the game leaves it out.

Making Africa matter was a big part of why I wanted a colony mechanic added to the game.

 

[shri]

Overall for the AXIS, the North Africa sideshow was a waste, even in their wildest dreams getting to Iran/Iraq was difficult due to the Royal Navy and RAF being completely superior to the Italian counterparts. Even if they reached, the oil pipeline opened on the other side, it would have been a case of Caucasus part 2- reach the oil field, oil fields are burnt/sabotaged by the SAS, return back to base.
Better would to hold Tripoli and take out Malta and keep quiet.

 

[Irishjim]

The brits were afraid that ze Germans and Italians got to the Suez canal, and therfore would cut important trading routes.
That is not the only reason, but still, it strategically mattered.

 

[shri]

Once War Started, as far as i know most of the British Ships went around Africa and not through SUEZ, now if you have statistics to show otherwise, i am open to see.
I haven't read about SUEZ being widely used in War Time.

 

[Cybvep]

One of the reasons for the importance of North Africa for the Allies was the proximity of air bases to Sicily. Therefore, capturing Tunisia and Libya helped the Allies to achieve air superiority in the Central Mediterranean and these places were great staging points for the invasion of Sicily.

 

[Big Nev]

Overall for the AXIS, the North Africa sideshow was a waste, even in their wildest dreams getting to Iran/Iraq was difficult due to the Royal Navy and RAF being completely superior to the Italian counterparts. Even if they reached, the oil pipeline opened on the other side, it would have been a case of Caucasus part 2- reach the oil field, oil fields are burnt/sabotaged by the SAS, return back to base.
Better would to hold Tripoli and take out Malta and keep quiet.

Shri, you say AXIS, but you talk as if you mean Germany.

The North African sideshow was a waste for Germany, but it was important to Italy. From the start, Britain wanted to push the Italians out of Libya. Although the resource value of Libya was next to nil, it’s all about location and, of course, after the fall of France the political value of winning something, anything was a HUGE consideration.
Securing the North African coastline would also relieve a lot of the pressure on shipping passing through The Med on its way to/from the far-east. With British airbases in Tunis, Pantelleria would become the Italian Malta, but with even poorer prospects.

From the Il Duce’s perspective, winning something was equally important. Closing The Med to Britain would have been a significant, though not crippling, blow but would have opened the possibility of taking the entire Middle-East, East Africa and who knows… maybe even India. Although with the additional logistical problems of being forced to go around The Cape, Britain would have been even more hard-pressed to survive in Asia. But all of North & East Africa and the Middle-East would have been a huge boost to Italy & the Axis.

So from Germany’s perspective, it was a political move to not have their major ally, Italy crushed and open the way to another front in Europe.

 

[sic96]

Shri, you say AXIS, but you talk as if you mean Germany.

The North African sideshow was a waste for Germany, but it was important to Italy. From the start, Britain wanted to push the Italians out of Libya. Although the resource value of Libya was next to nil, it’s all about location and, of course, after the fall of France the political value of winning something, anything was a HUGE consideration.
Securing the North African coastline would also relieve a lot of the pressure on shipping passing through The Med on its way to/from the far-east. With British airbases in Tunis, Pantelleria would become the Italian Malta, but with even poorer prospects.

From the Il Duce’s perspective, winning something was equally important. Closing The Med to Britain would have been a significant, though not crippling, blow but would have opened the possibility of taking the entire Middle-East, East Africa and who knows… maybe even India. Although with the additional logistical problems of being forced to go around The Cape, Britain would have been even more hard-pressed to survive in Asia. But all of North & East Africa and the Middle-East would have been a huge boost to Italy & the Axis.

So from Germany’s perspective, it was a political move to not have their major ally, Italy crushed and open the way to another front in Europe.

also was the eritrean problem, il duce had need to connect with the duke of Aosta, and the solution passes through suez.

 

[No idea]

In TFH, if I am in the Allies, I don't want the Congo to fall if I'm researching nukes. Admittedly, that's not the most exciting reason, but it is one.

North Africa is a whole other ballgame. In fairness to HOI3, Italian Libya wasn't the most economically important colonial empire in the period. Securing Libya (and wiping out Italian forces in the region so they could not be withdrawn and used later) was more a matter of removing pressure from Malta and Egypt, not about securing vital resources. Also, securing North Africa opened the way to attacking Italy proper. And it fulfilled Churchill's desire to strike at the "soft underbelly" without launching a continental invasion.

I'm not sure how to make North Africa important without forcing players to think like Mussolini, Churchill, or various French leaders.

I agree. It is difficult to see why Africa must be fight over if you dont think thta keeping your lines of communication with India is important, as that makes the trip far shorter, and shipping was the most important thing for the allies ( and the longer the voyage, the more ships you need, so the less shipping you had for other purposes, aka invading places). Or if you think, like Commando Supremo or Hitler, that keeping the allies fighting in Africa was better than having them fighting in Italy (which is what will happen if you let Africa fall)

 

[shri]

Shri, you say AXIS, but you talk as if you mean Germany.

The North African sideshow was a waste for Germany, but it was important to Italy. From the start, Britain wanted to push the Italians out of Libya. Although the resource value of Libya was next to nil, it’s all about location and, of course, after the fall of France the political value of winning something, anything was a HUGE consideration.
Securing the North African coastline would also relieve a lot of the pressure on shipping passing through The Med on its way to/from the far-east. With British airbases in Tunis, Pantelleria would become the Italian Malta, but with even poorer prospects.

From the Il Duce’s perspective, winning something was equally important. Closing The Med to Britain would have been a significant, though not crippling, blow but would have opened the possibility of taking the entire Middle-East, East Africa and who knows… maybe even India. Although with the additional logistical problems of being forced to go around The Cape, Britain would have been even more hard-pressed to survive in Asia. But all of North & East Africa and the Middle-East would have been a huge boost to Italy & the Axis.

So from Germany’s perspective, it was a political move to not have their major ally, Italy crushed and open the way to another front in Europe.

I Agree i have given a biased perspective, let me come to why i did that-
In the European Axis (leaving Japan out of the equation for now), the Powers were - Germany + Others *(Italy + Hungary + Romania + Bulgaria).
Now AXIS Population in 1939 (eve of War) was about 250-260 million, out of which leaving about 73 million Japanese, we get about 185 million of which 85 million or so is German (including Volksduetsche and Austrian) also AXIS GDP at 1939 was approx. 65-66 Billion $, out of which leaving about 7.5 Billion $ of Japan, from the remaining 57 Billion $, 46 Billion $ or over 80% was German GDP (and this GDP rises due to annexation of Poland, Denmark, Norway, Low countries and France etc).

So, AXIS in Europe was basically - Germany + Others*.
This is my basis.

Secondly-
Somalia and Libya did not have oil (Libyan oil was discovered post WW2, not sure if Italy ever got any pre or during WW2, i think they did not)
Did not have any precious metals and also were a true PITA (Pain in the A**) to manage.
Also, every truck, tank, man sent here meant he was missing somewhere.

Third-
Taking out MALTA and CRETE (even if costly in short term) and then holding TRIPOLI would have also meant safety of Sicily.
Plus in the cost of those huge deployments in Africa, enough planes could have been mfg. (maybe on German techs) to defend in the air war over Sicily.
Also i refuse to believe that Italian Navy and Air Force were so great that they could wallop the RN and RAF... they proved incompetent against the Greeks.

P.S.: - I try to keep Italy away from AXIS as long as possible and it would have been best for Germany to keep Italy as also Hungary and Romania out of AXIS, keep them neutral and use them to trade. Control their economies and keep them for supply of Food and other Raw materials. No use having extra fronts and extra headaches.
In fact, other than Japan, the only really great AXIS nation is Finland. Others were well.. Others.

 

[shri]

I agree. It is difficult to see why Africa must be fight over if you dont think thta keeping your lines of communication with India is important, as that makes the trip far shorter, and shipping was the most important thing for the allies ( and the longer the voyage, the more ships you need, so the less shipping you had for other purposes, aka invading places). Or if you think, like Commando Supremo or Hitler, that keeping the allies fighting in Africa was better than having them fighting in Italy (which is what will happen if you let Africa fall)

There is a HUGE difference, thousands of Troops + Tanks and Planes were lost in Africa, half of them could have secured southern Italy and Sicily.
Also Southern Italy is land connected to Germany and German Troops could have entered, exited and supplied at will.
History shows how difficult conquering Italy was even with Air and Naval Supremacy once a competent General like Kesselring decided to fight defensively.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

So the one thing I'll say about the Africa campaign is that many historical researchers agree Turkey would have become more active with the axis if Africa and Middle east were captured by the Axis. Turkey would have been in a position of being surrounded by them much like Sweden, and Turkey could have provided some significant amount of resources to Germany, including oil and other rare materials. I know that Turkey was selling these to Germany already, but I don't believe that they were the #1 buyer.

In this case much of the middle east is also selling Germany and Italy oil as well with nothing the allies could do about it.

 

[keynes2.0]

Once War Started, as far as i know most of the British Ships went around Africa and not through SUEZ, now if you have statistics to show otherwise, i am open to see.
I haven't read about SUEZ being widely used in War Time.

+1

The only ships going through the Suez were going to Alexandria or going in the very rare and very well guarded convoys to supply Malta. Nothing was going to Gibraltar, that would be stupid.

After Husky and the Italian surrender this changed.

 

[SonGoku]

In Darkest Hour some African provinces have a nice amount of metal and rare materials. But - after the fall of the SU you never needed to invade African proper because you had all the resources you will ever need as Germany to defeat UK and the US. Africa never mattered in terms of resources or even strategic positioning in any HoI game which is really sad.

If the devs give Africa more resources and strategic value that maybe change especially if the British AI focus on defeating Italy there to later stage the deceisive invasion of Italy.

 

[f1nalstand17]

I think what is important is to make a mediterranen strategy war-winning for the axis. If Hitler had listened to Raeder's insistence on deploying several panzer divisions to Egypt before Crete(and Barbarossa), the Axis would have conquered: the Suez, Egypt, Malta, Gibraltar, as well as the middle east. Subsequently, the entire Mediterranean would've become an axis lake, thus protecting "the soft underbelly of Europe"). In addition, the Axis most definitely would've wooed Persia into the Axis (or just invaded them), therefore threatening the jewel of the British Empire: India. The British would've been stretched out thin, and if Hitler actually decided to really pursue Sea Lion(if the British were still resistant), they would be crushed due to the thin spread of the British troops.One must also keep in mind that the United States would not have entered the war, and Stalin would most happily fund the German War Machine with rare materials and oil, hoping to appease Hitler to buy enough time to strengthen the Red Army. After dealing with Britain, Hitler could have dealt with the Soviet Union. The result would be Hitler most probably finally having experiencing his dream of a German-colonized Lebensraum.

Of course the above scenario is only one of an infinite amount of plausible possibilities of what could have happened. For further references of the possible war-winning Axis Mediterranean strategy, please visit Bevin Alexander's book "How Hitler Could Have Won World War II".

 

[keynes2.0]

And Germany would get the port facilities to deploy these forces to North Africa from...?

 

[f1nalstand17]

And Germany would get the port facilities to deploy these forces to North Africa from...?

Italy, Vichy France, where else?:rofl: