El Alamein Choke Point Reasoning

[Galithor]

El Alamein as a chokepoint is a big + for the multiplayer games that weren't commonly using No Man's Land already. it really does make the war following the fall of France and before Barbarossa much more interesting.

If you'd never played a multiplayer game with one of the mods that made the Sahara a wasteland, you're in for a treat.

As far as dealing with the over-fortification of Alamein, that's nothing a horde of CAS and a bunch of small, cheap infantry divisions can't handle. You keep the point in perpetual battle, and those forts will break-down eventually. If you don't control the skies though, the forts didn't matter anyhow. You were going to lose either way.

You'd be surprised how many commonwealth countries make the mistake of defending Alamein with 40w divisions that have no signal companies. It doesn't matter if you have 20 40w divisions stacked onto the fort if they can't reinforce the frontline in a timely fashion.

 

[Praetori]

Just have to get creative with your plans then. Assuming you have and maintain naval superiority in the Mediterranean to sustain a campaign in Libya then look at Crete, Cyprus, after all that is what the Germans considered. Then an invasion into the delta itself or Palestine/ Syria etc would be the only option presently, seeing as strategic bombing is still pretty crap for forcing an enemy to retreat from overstretched supply

Historically the Axis forces in the desert (and Rommel with staff in particularly) was, after the first battle, merely awaiting a successful resolution of Armygroup B and A's battles at Stalingrad and the Caucasus respectively. There seems to have been plans (according to the memoirs of von Manstein) in Hitlers mind to send forces down into Iran and possibly as far as India pending the resolution of Case Blue and the Caucasus campaign. The idea was that pressure on Iran and the Levant would've forced the Allies to pull forces from the Egyptian front and thus opened an opportunity for renewed offensive operations by the DAK.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Since French built a fortified line in Tunisia anchored to relatively restrictive terrain (though not as, Allies flanked it historically) in late '30s, I don't see how El Almein-Quattara line would be implausible. The location is relatively close to Alexandria and is on a railhead as already noted. It would need to be tad longer than Mareth tho.

 

[Praetori]

Since French built a fortified line in Tunisia anchored to relatively restrictive terrain (though not as, Allies flanked it historically) in late '30s, I don't see how El-Almein-Quattara line would be implausible. The location is relatively close to Alexandria and is on a railhead as already noted. It would need to be tad longer than Mareth tho.

Indeed, very plausible, so plausible it actually happened historically (even though it might not compare to lvl10 forts which normally happens in-game). Auchinleck thought a more westward defense unfeasible and chose the ground due to logistics and the Qattara Depression specifically. There was simply no way that the DAK could've circled south to outflank the position which made it perfect in that regard.
Sure the terrain to the south isn't impassible per-se but as far as larger military formations go it would indeed have been a doomed endeavour.

 

[sterrius]

tying fort cost to infrastructure would kind fix any problem relating to the ahistorical fort level there.

It would also help in places like singapore, pacific, south america etc.

Of course the first levels are always going to be cheap, even if you put a +100% price tag on it. Specially to a major that can afford to spend 15CIC for some time for it.

but anything to me that reduces a little the total amount of MIC and CIC in the game is good in my book.

 

[Constans]

The fact that this is a good place for fortifications wasn't exactly a mystery to anyone, but building there would be very expensive. The problem is that forts have the same cost regardless of terrain type and distance to industrial hubs.

An easy way to do this is make Forts (and maybe everything else) tied to infrastructure. Want to fortify El Alamein? Sure, you can, but it'll be prohibitively expensive unless you invest in bumping the Infra up from 1.

There should also be a limit on how high you can get the airbase/radar/naval port/forts related to they type of state. Like, wastelands/tiny islands (and maybe exclaves?) should be hard limited to 5 at most in those categories.

Also... while we're at it, I think that unless changes are made maybe player-made forts should be capped at level 5. That's a pretty universal rule in MP, but it should probably be made a Vanilla one, focuses/starting forts let you go higher than that, but players shouldn't be able to build from 0-10 on their own given the incredible impact of such forts.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

And infrastructure itself should cost more in bad terrain, too. That would make it cost prohibitive for Britain to upgrade the fort beyond level 5 or so, and cost prohibitive for Italy to throw down tons of rail track on captured British sand dunes. Level one or two? Maybe for the first battle, allies had a better defense line for the second if I am reading the wiki article correctly.

 

[Wraith11B]

Well, they couldn't. Certainly not early as the Washington Treaty prevented the fortification of the Pacific. But HOI is not good at treaties, or even awareness of them.

K

Right... what I'm saying is that the US abided by the treaties which is not enforceable in the normal game (perhaps a national idea preventing OCONUS construction? which goes away after joining a war?) and so most people who are "playing" the US build up super-defended islands as unsinkable aircraft carriers.

 

[George_VI]

I think what this chokepoint thing, and the impassable Sahara scenario in general, will do, is to make the North African Campaign more of a back and forth fight than it currently is. If I remember rightly, Tobruk was first in Axis hands (being an Italian colony), and then in British hands and then back in Axis hands and then finally back in British hands again. In the current state you don't get that, you just get a dozen divisions inexplicably advancing across the Sahara and straight into the middle of Egypt.

 

[Khevenhuller]

Right... what I'm saying is that the US abided by the treaties which is not enforceable in the normal game (perhaps a national idea preventing OCONUS construction? which goes away after joining a war?) and so most people who are "playing" the US build up super-defended islands as unsinkable aircraft carriers.

Oh, understand perfectly and in no way wanted to be deliberately contrary. The inability of HOI4 to deal with treaties anyway (such as the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, Washington, first London, or even hold second London etc) may be due to PDX not knowing they exist, maybe not caring, maybe not wanting to place too many constraints on players' freedom of action or maybe the AI would have yet another reason to have a nervous breakdown. None of which hold water if you choose 'Historical AI': which ideally should mean a historical game with realistic alternatives and turning points. Given the brutal sledgehammer of 'Destroyers for Bases' it may be asking a bit too much that they do this sort of thing, but also i feel i am making excuses for them.

Turning the Pacific into a huge field of fortified carriers is hardly an issue in SP. Japan is so poor in terms of AI and aggression that for many games you wonder if it is even there.

I am not sure the British could have just simply built fortifications at El Alamein, as if there were no other considerations beyond the strategic. The effect upon the civilian population of Egypt (you mean you expect the Italians to get that far?) and the expectation that France will collapse and the 'Med will become a dangerous place (not placing much faith in us are you, mon brave?) or the ability of the Brits to undertake an operational offensive (will someone tell General O'Connor to stop beating the Italians and start defending?) all point to it being a bit more complicated than 'lets build some forts here'. Well, in a game that involved thoughtful play and presented more challenge through choice that would be the case.

K

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

There should also be a limit on how high you can get the airbase/radar/naval port/forts related to they type of state. Like, wastelands/tiny islands (and maybe exclaves?) should be hard limited to 5 at most in those categories.

Ulithi would be fine historical example of level 10 (or even 11) naval base on tiny atoll. Obviously it was a lagoon anchorage with the "shore" establishment afloat on fleet of service ships but provincal base only way to represent such currently. Agreed on airbase, and I'd add garrison to the list.

 

[Praetori]

I would tie incremental construction-cost with state_category (in effect the same method that's used for deciding the amount of IC building-slots).
Currently a fort is 500 and then increasing by 500 per level of previous forts. If this was raised to say 2000 and then divided by state_category it would be immensely costly to fortify wastelands, islands etc (0 state_level=2000 incremental) but not prohibitively so to fortify large cities like Stalingrad, Berlin etc (8 state_level=250 incremental).
All tweakable of course depending on what values you chose.

 

[Telenil]

Historically the Axis forces in the desert (and Rommel with staff in particularly) was, after the first battle, merely awaiting a successful resolution of Armygroup B and A's battles at Stalingrad and the Caucasus respectively. There seems to have been plans (according to the memoirs of von Manstein) in Hitlers mind to send forces down into Iran and possibly as far as India pending the resolution of Case Blue and the Caucasus campaign. The idea was that pressure on Iran and the Levant would've forced the Allies to pull forces from the Egyptian front and thus opened an opportunity for renewed offensive operations by the DAK.

If you mean after the first battle of El-Alamein, Rommel really couldn't do anything else, the Royal Navy was sinking supplies left, right and center (something that can't happen in the game, can it?). If the Afrikakorps could go as far as it, did, that's because it had captured British stocks. More German divisions wouldn't have helped much.

 

[George Parr]

If you mean after the first battle of El-Alamein, Rommel really couldn't do anything else, the Royal Navy was sinking supplies left, right and center (something that can't happen in the game, can it?). If the Afrikakorps could go as far as it, did, that's because it had captured British stocks. More German divisions wouldn't have helped much.

That wasn't the point of that post. It was about Britain having to relocate forces from El-Alamein towards Iran and Iraq due to the Germans breaking through in the Caucasus. These troops wouldn't have been supplied through Africa, so they wouldn't have taxed that supply-route any further. The idea being that an outside influence (= the risk of Germany reaching Egypt or even India from the north) would have lead to improved odds at El-Alamein as well, due to the British having to split their forces.

Now, that would have been rather unlikely, as such an operation would only have been possible if the Soviet Union had fallen thanks to Case Blue, which would have been very unlikely. And not only that, but Germany was already having severe trouble supplying troops in the Caucasus, so having those push into Iran or Iraq would have been even worse.

 

[Emperorheinrich]

This information is all very helpful and enlightening. I look forward to fighting for El-Alamein upon release tomorrow!

 

[Tisifoni12]

Re: Quattara depression

This features in the classic film Ice Cold in Alex. The main characters have to cross this at one stage of their journey from Tobruk to Alexandria.

 

[Duke_Dave]

One of the best features of the new patch, it will make fighing in Africa interesting again and make it more of an interesting fight, were it actually makes sense to give up a territory in order to shorten the front. Before that Al-Alamein was basically pointless, because you just drove around it.

 

[Dalwin]

The only problem with the choke point is most players know history too well & can start building defenses at the start of the game. They can turn it into another Gibraltar. I don't know of an easy way to stop this. The British did build a level of fortifications there that I think would be level one in game terms. Otherwise it is very historical & correct.


P.S. Return the Mini-Map

It is actually much stronger than Gibraltar in HOI4. Gibraltar even with level 10 forts will fall if the Axis wants it. It is indefensible because there is nowhere to fall back and rest. Alemein on the other hand can be held forever if he Allies have committed enough force. The only way to take it is to successfully invade Alexandria and cut it off from supply. Even that will not work if the UK simply builds a port there.

You could, theoretically, use the DMZ mechanic for North Africa (or other areas of interest) with triggers. DMZ disallows building forts in that area for example (and then you revoke the DMZ status through trigger).

Not to mention that this mechanic would keep the US from turning her islands in the Pacific into their own Gibraltars, preventing Japanese advances. @podcat @SteelVolt would this be difficult to implement? A cool-down for fortification building?

Those are things we try to address with house rules in our group. Alemein falls into the generic level 5 fort rule and the USA we limit to level 1 on its islands before entering the war. We also limit the US to one division on those islands.

 

[Sir Garnet]

From an earlier discussion on whether to try NML for games or mod differently:

Posted before - one wide El Alamein is weak geography and bad game design. El Alamein is not a pass that would force an army to "stick to the coast, nor a narrow defile considering the force levels involved.

The El Alamein position is not flankable by more than scouts through the Qattara, which basin delimits the battlefield by high sheer cliffs. The distance from the Qattara to the Ruweisat Ridge that bisects the defensive positions in an east-west direction is 20 miles, and the distance from the ridge to the sea is 11 miles as I measure it on a map that actually still offers a scale (see below). The overall El Alamein line stretched for 50 KM from sea to Qattara, though the weight of forces was naturally toward the sea.

On a continental scale, it is a narrow defile, but tactically over 30 miles it is open and wide enough to allow maneuver as well as penetration efforts and room for envelopment of the forces in the forward coastal defenses if they failed to guard the entire front (which envelopment Rommel quickly contemplated).

The critical design decision in area-based games is whether the layout (a) fits the nature of the battles that were or could be fought in those areas and (b) prevents impossible actions (and discourages risky ones). The game master decides that. Not always easy.

Reviewing the combat history and terrain, my impression is that a single province would need to be extremely wide to allow sufficient combat, and that for divisions of reasonable sizes two provinces of width better present the challenges and choices faced by both sides historically - particularly the nature of the early defense of the position, where pretty much all the eggs were put at risk in the coastal fortified box basket. Powerful forts on the coast would not interfdict the 50km to the Qattara. This was not a bludgeoning frontal assault - more fluid than that.

Took some effort to find an old-fashioned map with scale on it. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_El_Alamein#/media/File:Alamein1st1942_07.svg

 

[Daelyn75]

View attachment 275366
The blue at the top of the photo is the Eastern Med.
Imagine fitting 10,000 men and 200 tanks in that space between the sea and depression.
Where the battle took place was only a little wider than this and had 100,000 axis and 200,000 allies.

In 1942 El Alimain was just a railway station and some houses and was the furthest western extent of the rail line. It is also at the eastern tip of the depression, so it had two strategic reasons for being the fall back line for the British.

Awesome picture. Now I can just imagine it and why they couldn't get around that.