Is it better for the blocked off Sahara to extend all the way to the west coast or not?

[Dalwin]

I have seen some mods do it either way. Personally I think it plays out better if a narrow strip, say one province wide and three provinces long at infra 1, is left along the west coast instead of blocking it completely. This allows some minimal pressure to be applied in western Africa without having to resort to an amphibious operation to get past the Sahara.

If one looks at period maps of both the road nets as well as population density etc., the area along the west coast is roughly equivalent in its development level to the area in southern Egypt which is left as passable to connect North Africa to the south.

Looking at the screen shots in the DD, it appears that it would take a strip that is two provinces long to connect Spanish Morocco to French Senegal in the current iteration. I know it is perhaps greedy to seek a change to something that was just changed, but once it is released I am fairly certain this part of the map will be set in stone as it were.

 

[14lokk1]

Question: would that mess with AI logic?

 

[Sanny]

Question: would that mess with AI logic?

Further Question: Does the AI actually make use of logic?

 

[14lokk1]

Further Question: Does the AI actually make use of logic?

As much as I like to criticize the AI, I feel that given they're announcing an AI update, it's better to wait till the update hits before levying further criticism at the AI…

 

[Dalwin]

Some of the mods that block off the Sahara leave a strip along the coast and the AI seems to handle it well enough. I am a bit sorry that I don't remember specific mods that did it that way since I have tried too many different ones by now. I'd rather see the AI trying to force a few units through a narrow strip of low infrastructure than to have it doing even ore very risky landings.

I'd like to say that one of them was the Expert AI 2.0, but I am not certain. It originally had its map alteration in the main mod and then later split it out. It also had some popup at the begging that allowed for making some choice on how such tings were to be treated but it was never clear to me so I always used the recommended option.

 

[redrum68]

+1 to having a small strip of movable land on the West African coast. Though if it does hinder the AI then it might be better without it.

 

[Axe99]

Good question . My answer would depend on whether it's feasible to support division-level movement and combat (in a 1930s/1940s context) through those provinces without a sea connection (as while there is a sea connection, it can't be assumed to be useable, particularly by the Axis) - which would be my general response to movement in any area. I'm afraid I wouldn't know where to start in terms of looking for whether that was possible in that part of the world though (or whether that's a good approach in the first place ).

 

[CaosRL]

I like it this way, I don't want to fight or need to be aware of west Africa (which is empty land with no strategic value and with very poor infraestrucutre) because the AI can invade over there only for the sake of invading something

 

[SteveStevenson]

I think that no mans land is preferable to the system that we have now but this solution is really cheesable. In NML games I tend to win North Africa every time just by dropping paratroopers or naval invading behind the italians at el alamein when they move up. This strategy works just as well against the British (which is why i build a lvl 1 port on el alamein) .

 

[adam_grif]

I would sooner remove the path down the nile than add another one on the west coast, frankly.

 

[Stug_Life]

I think paradox closing off the west side of Africa forces allies to recreate operation Torch, while creating a safe environment for the Free French territory to remain unmolested. Personally I dont mind it at all.

 

[Dalwin]

I think paradox closing off the west side of Africa forces allies to recreate operation Torch, while creating a safe environment for the Free French territory to remain unmolested. Personally I dont mind it at all.

That is an interesting take on the situation.

 

[blusarge27]

I guess it depends on what, if any, changes are made to what territory goes to to Free France and Vichy. Historically French West Africa and Gabon switched to Vichy while only Equatorial Africa stayed with Free France. Gabon fell soon at the end of 1940, but West Africa only fell after Torch. So I think if Paradox went that route I would prefer to have it closed and have Vichy and FF fight it out amongst themselves without hordes of Italian divisions pouring down through the western Sahara. And even today there's no railroad in all of the western Sahara and the only real highway is along the coast, parts of which were dirt roads up until recently - though I'm not sure when the rest of it was paved.

Incidentally, one of the only major battles in the area was an amphibious invasion in the Battle of Dakar, which the Allies failed at. So perhaps having naval invasions being the only viable way to reach West Africa is the way to go.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

I think paradox closing off the west side of Africa forces allies to recreate operation Torch, while creating a safe environment for the Free French territory to remain unmolested. Personally I dont mind it at all.

Spanish Morocco can be that roadblock between coastal Mauritania and French Morocco.

 

[Duke_Dave]

I like it, the Axis would have chosen the Nile route to invade southern africa because there they could use the rivers to transport support. Also it is always annoying as a minor allies faction having secured Africa and then having Spain join Axis and go on another rampage from its African territories.