Will northern Africa be as important in the game as it was historically?

[jju_57]

Historically Germany thought Northern Africa was strategically important.
They sent german soldiers and panzers to fight in the desert.

You mean so important that they sent 3-4 divisions there for most of the campaign? You mean so important that it received less than 5% of the men and equipment during the years Germany fought there? That important?

EDIT: let me add this. The Axis thought NA would be important but in reality it was not important and was actually a big mistake.

We as humans with 20/20 hindsight can see history and know that it was a sideshow and a mistake. If you defeat the SU NA will fall. If you win NA but lose SU you will still lose.

So the real issue is not that we should fight there because people during the time made the mistake and thought they needed to. It was a mistake and NA was not important. But we know that through hindsight. So the issue really should be restated to something like:

NA is a sideshow and not that important but historically the leaders at the time thought it was. So how can HOI4 force us to think it is important to invest troops there when we all know they would be much better utilized fighting somewhere else?

 

[No idea]

Well, if you manage to close the Med, and for that you must fight for NA, you shield against invasions via Italy, as it happened irl, on to p of that, make the brits supply chain to the Far East far longer, and you can grab the iraki and persian oilfields, in case you cant grab the caucasus ones. Of course, nothing matters much if the ai is not good at naval invasions, no country ever runs outof crude and shipping is of lesser importance. All in all, the problem is game mechanics, not NA being worthless.

 

[jju_57]

Doesn't "closing the Med" require you take Gibraltar? And without Spain's entry it really shouldn't be possible.

 

[Secret Master]

Doesn't "closing the Med" require you take Gibraltar? And without Spain's entry it really shouldn't be possible.

Or without the Royal Navy being neutralized in some other way. (In which case, closing the Med isn't that big of a deal, since the Royal Navy is going to fight to keep it open tooth and nail.)

 

[No idea]

Doesn't "closing the Med" require you take Gibraltar? And without Spain's entry it really shouldn't be possible.

In the game, not really. If you want to be realistic, yes.

 

[tommylotto]

You mean so important that they sent 3-4 divisions there for most of the campaign? You mean so important that it received less than 5% of the men and equipment during the years Germany fought there? That important?

EDIT: let me add this. The Axis thought NA would be important but in reality it was not important and was actually a big mistake.

We as humans with 20/20 hindsight can see history and know that it was a sideshow and a mistake. If you defeat the SU NA will fall. If you win NA but lose SU you will still lose.

So the real issue is not that we should fight there because people during the time made the mistake and thought they needed to. It was a mistake and NA was not important. But we know that through hindsight. So the issue really should be restated to something like:

NA is a sideshow and not that important but historically the leaders at the time thought it was. So how can HOI4 force us to think it is important to invest troops there when we all know they would be much better utilized fighting somewhere else?

If you look at the war from a purely German perspective, what you say may be accurate. However, the war in North Africa was an important theater to the Italians (not as important as the Balkans, but important). They wanted to "liberate" Egypt and open Suez to reestablish their lines of communication with their colonies in East Africa. Eventually, they wanted to neutralize Gibraltar and establish "Mare Nostrum". Remember, when Italy joined the war in 1940, they saw it as a parallel war of opportunity. What was in it for them? They did not think they were joining a war of annialation, particularly not with the likes of the Soviet Union and the USA. The fighting in North Africa makes sense as an extension of their colonial "bush" war against the Brits. It does not make sense from a Germany-centric global geopolitical ideological grand conflict standpoint. However, by the time it became evident that that was what Italy had joined, it was too late. The position in North Africa was thought necessary (and rightly so) to keep a shaky Italy in the war. Thus, you see the desperate and foolish doubling down in Tunisia followed by the invasion of Sicily and the capitulation of Italy.

In game terms, it makes most sense for Italy to pull all its troops out of East and North Africa and use those troops to assist Germany in defeating the Soviet Union. That is what is best in the global geopolitical war of annialation, but what's in that for Italy and why would Italy join that? Maybe the Axis should desperately need Italian manpower to garrison the Balkans to free up their troops for Barbarossa. And to keep that manpower working for the Axis, the Axis needs to keep Italy in the war, and to keep Italy in the war they need to hold onto a position in North Africa. Losing in Africa should result in such a hit in dissent and national unity for Italy, that once Africa falls, Italy becomes a basket case ripe for the fall.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

If you look at the war from a purely German perspective, what you say may be accurate. However, the war in North Africa was an important theater to the Italians (not as important as the Balkans, but important). They wanted to "liberate" Egypt and open Suez to reestablish their lines of communication with their colonies in East Africa. Eventually, they wanted to neutralize Gibraltar and establish "Mare Nostrum". Remember, when Italy joined the war in 1940, they saw it as a parallel war of opportunity. What was in it for them? They did not think they were joining a war of annialation, particularly not with the likes of the Soviet Union and the USA. The fighting in North Africa makes sense as an extension of their colonial "bush" war against the Brits. It does not make sense from a Germany-centric global geopolitical ideological grand conflict standpoint. However, by the time it became evident that that was what Italy had joined, it was too late. The position in North Africa was thought necessary (and rightly so) to keep a shaky Italy in the war. Thus, you see the desperate and foolish doubling down in Tunisia followed by the invasion of Sicily and the capitulation of Italy.

In game terms, it makes most sense for Italy to pull all its troops out of East and North Africa and use those troops to assist Germany in defeating the Soviet Union. That is what is best in the global geopolitical war of annialation, but what's in that for Italy and why would Italy join that? Maybe the Axis should desperately need Italian manpower to garrison the Balkans to free up their troops for Barbarossa. And to keep that manpower working for the Axis, the Axis needs to keep Italy in the war, and to keep Italy in the war they need to hold onto a position in North Africa. Losing in Africa should result in such a hit in dissent and national unity for Italy, that once Africa falls, Italy becomes a basket case ripe for the fall.

Except that requires massive investment and resources in defense forces for ALL of Southern Europe. As long as the Med remains allies then garrisons and divisions must be kept ALL over the southern parts of Europe and especially Southern Italy to defend against invasions. That is a tremendous amount of resources that can be deployed to USSR, much more then what was committed to Africa. IMO your idea is actually worse due to the material and manpower demand.

 

[jju_57]

Except that requires massive investment and resources in defense forces for ALL of Southern Europe. As long as the Med remains allies then garrisons and divisions must be kept ALL over the southern parts of Europe and especially Southern Italy to defend against invasions. That is a tremendous amount of resources that can be deployed to USSR, much more then what was committed to Africa. IMO your idea is actually worse due to the material and manpower demand.

Nope because the allies weren't ready for any major amphib operations in 1940- mid 1942. even without sending a single troop to NA the Axis would not have to have more troops in southern Europe then they already had. And the 250K+ troops lost in NA would have served a much better use in SU. Remember the timeframe we are talking about. Germany only has up to 1942 to defeat SU. After that they lose. Those extra troops just might have made a difference in 1941 or held the line at Stalingrad. Let the Allies pay around in the desert. If you lose SU you lost. If you win all those troops could easily defeat any landings that the allies might have made.

If you look at the war from a purely German perspective, what you say may be accurate. However, the war in North Africa was an important theater to the Italians

It might have been important for some Italian reason but strategically it was a waste for the Axis as a whole. The war was going to be won or lost in SU. If Germany defeats the SU all those troops can easily retake any land the Allies might have gotten.

This is all hindsight and I can't believe people don't see it. At the time it might appear to be important but in reality it wasn't.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

Nope because the allies weren't ready for any major amphib operations in 1940- mid 1942. even without sending a single troop to NA the Axis would not have to have more troops in southern Europe then they already had. And the 250K+ troops lost in NA would have served a much better use in SU. Remember the timeframe we are talking about. Germany only has up to 1942 to defeat SU. After that they lose. Those extra troops just might have made a difference in 1941 or held the line at Stalingrad. Let the Allies pay around in the desert. If you lose SU you lost. If you win all those troops could easily defeat any landings that the allies might have made.

Africa took a tremendous amount of resources from the allies as well. Operation Torch took place in Nov 1942, which arguably could have been much sooner if they were able to rededicate resources they were spending for units in Africa. So your timeframe is also off.

Your also failing in your assumption that YOU HAVE TO send 250,000 extra soldiers to Africa to win the war. In fact there was no need for extra troops, Rommel was perfectly capable of defeating them on his own.

If Axis establishes complete air dominance over Med, and focuses more on disrupting the supply lines through Uboats and air, the UK troops in Africa can never get more reinforcements, more tanks, more men that they historically had. There are easier ways to win the war in Africa, which is exactly what the UK did. Cut the supply lines of resources and fuel, and the troops crumble. Axis can do the same exact strategy, and still deploy the 250,000 troops to USSR instead of Tunisia. This also frees up more troops for the axis from less defenses needed in Southern Europe.

Everyone always works with the assumption that you HAVE TO deploy the historical troops to Africa, you don't. Employing the same strategy as USA against Japan, or UK against Axis African troops (destroying and disrupting supplies) is the most effective weapon. Africa is not about how many troops you need to deploy, but who is going to keep their supply lines running.

 

[Kovax]

You mean so important that they sent 3-4 divisions there for most of the campaign? You mean so important that it received less than 5% of the men and equipment during the years Germany fought there? That important?

That was not strictly a matter of "importance", it's all that the Italians could supply across the heavily contested Med, and barely able to do even that.

NA wasn't so much a matter of importance for the Axis to take control of, as for them not to lose it, leaving the UK with a much freer hand. While it was a "sideshow", it wasn't a trivial one by any means, and a big win or loss could (and did) have larger implications.

Germany not being able to ship units via Italian transports, and there being no Afrika Korps, was a fairly noticeable omission from the last game.

 

[PiousWarrior]

So we talk about NA i want ask a question a bit of topic but will be desert winter equipment etc..

 

[Secret Master]

Let's be honest: the ultimate win for the Axis is closing the Med to the Allies by seizing Gibraltar and the Suez. This would not defeat the British completely, but it would be a nasty blow. Assuming the Axis can then keep control of both ends by protecting against Operation Torch style attacks (would Vichy even let them station troops in Morocco in this scenario?) this frees up more Italian resources to back the Germans against the Soviets, and means that Germany doesn't have to cover that part of Europe to protect against invasion.

I don't think it would actually make a difference in the long run against the Soviets, though. Stalingrad was decided before any German forces could make it to Italy to repel the invasion there. The initial attack on the Soviets was decided by December of 1941, but while Barbarossa is going on, Rommel is tied down at Tobruk. I don't see the Italians or Rommel winning in enough time to allow for more resources to be deployed for Barbarossa.

The question to me is whether losing the Med would change British strategy or not. Would the British and Americans just begin planning Overlord? Or would they focus on retaking the Med?

 

[Daelyn75]

Let's be honest: the ultimate win for the Axis is closing the Med to the Allies by seizing Gibraltar and the Suez. This would not defeat the British completely, but it would be a nasty blow. Assuming the Axis can then keep control of both ends by protecting against Operation Torch style attacks (would Vichy even let them station troops in Morocco in this scenario?) this frees up more Italian resources to back the Germans against the Soviets, and means that Germany doesn't have to cover that part of Europe to protect against invasion.

I don't think it would actually make a difference in the long run against the Soviets, though. Stalingrad was decided before any German forces could make it to Italy to repel the invasion there. The initial attack on the Soviets was decided by December of 1941, but while Barbarossa is going on, Rommel is tied down at Tobruk. I don't see the Italians or Rommel winning in enough time to allow for more resources to be deployed for Barbarossa.

The question to me is whether losing the Med would change British strategy or not. Would the British and Americans just begin planning Overlord? Or would they focus on retaking the Med?

I think pride would dictate retaking the Mediterranean in this circumstance. I cannot see Churchill doing anything otherwise.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

Let's be honest: the ultimate win for the Axis is closing the Med to the Allies by seizing Gibraltar and the Suez. This would not defeat the British completely, but it would be a nasty blow. Assuming the Axis can then keep control of both ends by protecting against Operation Torch style attacks (would Vichy even let them station troops in Morocco in this scenario?) this frees up more Italian resources to back the Germans against the Soviets, and means that Germany doesn't have to cover that part of Europe to protect against invasion.

I don't think it would actually make a difference in the long run against the Soviets, though. Stalingrad was decided before any German forces could make it to Italy to repel the invasion there. The initial attack on the Soviets was decided by December of 1941, but while Barbarossa is going on, Rommel is tied down at Tobruk. I don't see the Italians or Rommel winning in enough time to allow for more resources to be deployed for Barbarossa.

The question to me is whether losing the Med would change British strategy or not. Would the British and Americans just begin planning Overlord? Or would they focus on retaking the Med?

The only thing I would argue is that Securing the Middle east would put more pressure on Turkey to at the very least end up similar to Sweden. German troops rolling through Turkey to capture the oil fields would be a blow to USSR and open up a third front. IF Turkey forces actually end up assisting or joining the Axis, then this would really put a huge strain on USSR in my opinion. Not to mention the potential for more resources flowing from Turkey to Axis.

 

[jju_57]

Let's be honest: the ultimate win for the Axis is closing the Med to the Allies by seizing Gibraltar and the Suez. This would not defeat the British completely, but it would be a nasty blow. Assuming the Axis can then keep control of both ends by protecting against Operation Torch style attacks (would Vichy even let them station troops in Morocco in this scenario?) this frees up more Italian resources to back the Germans against the Soviets, and means that Germany doesn't have to cover that part of Europe to protect against invasion.

I don't think it would actually make a difference in the long run against the Soviets, though. Stalingrad was decided before any German forces could make it to Italy to repel the invasion there. The initial attack on the Soviets was decided by December of 1941, but while Barbarossa is going on, Rommel is tied down at Tobruk. I don't see the Italians or Rommel winning in enough time to allow for more resources to be deployed for Barbarossa.

The question to me is whether losing the Med would change British strategy or not. Would the British and Americans just begin planning Overlord? Or would they focus on retaking the Med?

What is the Germans and Italians never sent forces to NA and instead devoted them strictly to SU? That is my point.

We know the historical strategy lost. So sending some troops to NA is a losing strategy because, well it lost. So when we play the game we have two options.

1) Send even more troops to NA.
2) Don't send any troops and instead use them in 1941 against SU.

Using hindsight we know two additional facts.

1) Winning NA but losing to the SU means losing the war anyway.
2) Defeating the SU and losing NA means you will eventually have more than enough troops to recapture NA.

So logic dictates just one course of action. That is to go all out to win against the SU. If you lose you lose no matter what other things happen. If you defeat the SU you have more than enough resources to control Europe and NA.

Therefore, the only logical strategic choice here is winning against the SU at all costs.

 

[tommylotto]

What is the Germans and Italians never sent forces to NA and instead devoted them strictly to SU? That is my point.

And my point is that the Italians would never go for that. If Hitler suggested that Mussolini sacrifice Italy's colonial empire so that more of his troops could die on the Russian steppe, Mussolini would have said, "No." But I imagine him using more spicy language. What was in it for him? What was in it for Italy? Mussolini and the Italian people did not exist to serve Nazi ambitions in the east. Once they lost their colonies and were merely fighting for German Lebensraum, they would go peace out. If the Axis does not want the headache of Italian ambitions in the Mediterranean, Africa and the Balkans, the solution is to not call them to arms and leave them neutral. Just tapping Italy for additional manpower for Barbarossa should not be an option.

 

[jju_57]

And my point is that the Italians would never go for that. If Hitler suggested that Mussolini sacrifice Italy's colonial empire so that more of his troops could die on the Russian steppe, Mussolini would have said, "No." But I imagine him using more spicy language. What was in it for him? What was in it for Italy? Mussolini and the Italian people did not exist to serve Nazi ambitions in the east. Once they lost their colonies and were merely fighting for German Lebensraum, they would go peace out. If the Axis does not want the headache of Italian ambitions in the Mediterranean, Africa and the Balkans, the solution is to not call them to arms and leave them neutral. Just tapping Italy for additional manpower for Barbarossa should not be an option.

All the better for Germany. If Italy goes "peace out" that means the entire southern border is secure. The allies can't get to Germany from there.

But really Italy may want to "peace out" but that means they give back NA, Ethiopia, Greece etc. So they lose that stuff anyway. Besides you completely miss my point but I'll say it once again.

Back in 1940 the Axis THOUGHT NA was important. But using hindsight we know it's not important at all. You make the mistake of us not knowing history. So playing the GAME we know NA means nothing. In MP you convince your playing partner of this as they know SU or bust is the ONLY option.

And as I said this proves NA is not important anyway.

 

[Daelyn75]

All the better for Germany. If Italy goes "peace out" that means the entire southern border is secure. The allies can't get to Germany from there.

But really Italy may want to "peace out" but that means they give back NA, Ethiopia, Greece etc. So they lose that stuff anyway. Besides you completely miss my point but I'll say it once again.

Back in 1940 the Axis THOUGHT NA was important. But using hindsight we know it's not important at all. You make the mistake of us not knowing history. So playing the GAME we know NA means nothing. In MP you convince your playing partner of this as they know SU or bust is the ONLY option.

And as I said this proves NA is not important anyway.

It is an interesting choice of strategy to play like that in the game though. After the Soviets have been defeated, the Axis can then swing with full force into the Middle East/Mediterranean and defeat the allies from that way.

I usually have Italy keep them busy in Libya/Egypt until victory in Russia, then meet them from the other side from the Caucasus. We aren't talking about the best AI however, but then I don't have my Italian troops do silly things the AI would normally do. Military control is a must there.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

What is the Germans and Italians never sent forces to NA and instead devoted them strictly to SU? That is my point.

We know the historical strategy lost. So sending some troops to NA is a losing strategy because, well it lost. So when we play the game we have two options.

1) Send even more troops to NA.
2) Don't send any troops and instead use them in 1941 against SU.

Using hindsight we know two additional facts.

1) Winning NA but losing to the SU means losing the war anyway.
2) Defeating the SU and losing NA means you will eventually have more than enough troops to recapture NA.

So logic dictates just one course of action. That is to go all out to win against the SU. If you lose you lose no matter what other things happen. If you defeat the SU you have more than enough resources to control Europe and NA.

Therefore, the only logical strategic choice here is winning against the SU at all costs.

Your logic is fallacy because you do not need to send more troops to Africa. If you prevent UK reinforcements from arriving by disrupting supplies, then there is no need for extra troops.

We already know the effects of this because
1. USA did it against Japan
2. UK did it against Italian/German reinforcements/supplies in Med.

We know the strategy works, we know the effects the lack of supplies does to troops and morale. There is no reason to NEED to dedicate more troops to Africa.

Even if somehow they get reinforcements/troops, this now means they need more ammo, more fuel, more food, to supply the troops. The more you cut the supplies, the more pressure it puts on the UK.

 

[CocoCincinnati]

What is the Germans and Italians never sent forces to NA and instead devoted them strictly to SU? That is my point.
.

Without North Africa to worry about, it's a good bet that the US gets it's wish for an immediate invasion of France in late 42/early 43. As I mentioned earlier, this could have been a disaster for the Allies but if (possibly a big if) they managed to maintain a foothold they would have eventually been able to get enough men and supplies ashore to open up that front. How would a western front in early 43 have affected the eastern front? Would it have drawn the same amount of resources than were historicaly committed to Africa/Italy? More? Less?