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

[jju_57]

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.

Ugh. Why have ANY troops there at all? I'm not talking about sending MORE troops I'm saying ignore the joint. Use everything for SU.

Look the thread title says this:

"Will North Africa be as Important in the Game as Historically?"

First off that is a fallacy because history proved it wasn't important. It was only PERCEIVED to be important. Big difference. A perception without hindsight is valid. A perception when you know the future is not.

This was why in HOI1, HOI2 and HOI3 NA was basically ignored. The OP and others thought putting resources there would make it matter. And in one concept they are right. You need to change reality in the game to make it matter because using hindsight and reality NA just doesn't matter.

 

[jju_57]

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?

Please. Do you really think 3-5 divisions would be enough because in late 1942 early 43 they only had the transports and landing craft to invade with that many. One major reason for the delay was because the Allies didn't have the ships or logistics to do D-Day.

And if you defeat SU by end of 1943 you have more than enough troops to win or take it back. Remember this strategy is based on one simple truth.

1) SU defeats Germany, Germany loses no matter what else happens.
2) Germany defeats SU in 1941 or 1942 Germany easily holds all of Europe no matter what else happens.

I noticed no one tried to argue that these 2 incontrovertible facts aren't true. So the only important thing is winning against the SU. Germany lost historically because they didn't realize this fact and didn't prepare or go all out to accomplish it. In our games we do and when SU falls it's game over. Every MP game knows this.

 

[shri]

A neutral Italy will actually benefit the AXIS not hinder it.
It will be the windpipe through which food and even Oil could be imported by Germany in return for Coal (which Italy needed).
BTW the call to arms was because the Il Duce in all his greatness thought that the Anglo-French empires were dead and decided to do a sudden land grab by attacking the French Alpine lands.
He did it again by attacking Greece suddenly from his Albanian lands.
Both times the AXIS (read Germans) had to bail him out of trouble.

 

[shri]

Please. Do you really think 3-5 divisions would be enough because in late 1942 early 43 they only had the transports and landing craft to invade with that many. One major reason for the delay was because the Allies didn't have the ships or logistics to do D-Day.

And if you defeat SU by end of 1943 you have more than enough troops to win or take it back. Remember this strategy is based on one simple truth.

1) SU defeats Germany, Germany loses no matter what else happens.
2) Germany defeats SU in 1941 or 1942 Germany easily holds all of Europe no matter what else happens.

I noticed no one tried to argue that these 2 incontrovertible facts aren't true. So the only important thing is winning against the SU. Germany lost historically because they didn't realize this fact and didn't prepare or go all out to accomplish it. In our games we do and when SU falls it's game over. Every MP game knows this.

Punch with your fist, don't probe with your fingers!. You couldn't have put that better. Beating the BEAR is all that was important RL or game, everything else is tertiary.

 

[jdavis86]

Ugh. Why have ANY troops there at all? I'm not talking about sending MORE troops I'm saying ignore the joint. Use everything for SU.

Look the thread title says this:

"Will North Africa be as Important in the Game as Historically?"

First off that is a fallacy because history proved it wasn't important. It was only PERCEIVED to be important. Big difference. A perception without hindsight is valid. A perception when you know the future is not.

This was why in HOI1, HOI2 and HOI3 NA was basically ignored. The OP and others thought putting resources there would make it matter. And in one concept they are right. You need to change reality in the game to make it matter because using hindsight and reality NA just doesn't matter.

How many divisions did Germany really send to N Africa? I think from a numbers perspective it is hard to say the North African troops would have made much difference on the eastern front. Rommel himself from a leadership perspective perhaps would have. I don't know.

The many divisions Hitler stuck in Norway probably would have made more of a contribution.

It is a lot easier for us to dismiss North Africa in hindsight.

It was critical to the survival of the British Empire, and a gateway to oil for Hitler.

Libya had more value to the Italians than is expressed in HOI3, Tripoli being Mussolini's golden goose, and (I think?) a big supplier foodstuffs.

 

[shri]

How many divisions did Germany really send to N Africa? I think from a numbers perspective it is hard to say the North African troops would have made much difference on the eastern front. Rommel himself from a leadership perspective perhaps would have. I don't know.

The many divisions Hitler stuck in Norway probably would have made more of a contribution.

It is a lot easier for us to dismiss North Africa in hindsight.

It was critical to the survival of the British Empire, and a gateway to oil for Hitler.

Libya had more value to the Italians than is expressed in HOI3, Tripoli being Mussolini's golden goose, and (I think?) a big supplier foodstuffs.

About half the troops in Norway were on a "garrison level troops", not fit for attacks and barely good for defence.
on the other hand the DAK troops in North Africa and Tunisia were Motorised troops, Panzers and Valuable Aircraft - about 5 to 10% of total German power, a sizeable difference in Russia where till late 1942 the Germans still had a chance.

 

[jju_57]

It is a lot easier for us to dismiss North Africa in hindsight.

This is my whole point. And since we're playing a game that allows us to use hindsight that means NA is really unimportant.

Now the question that really should be asked is this.

Because we have 20/20 hindsight vision and know that NA and other places are basically meaningless, how can HOI4 change that hindsight and force or at least encourage the human German player to treat these various theaters like they were historically treated.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

Ugh. Why have ANY troops there at all? I'm not talking about sending MORE troops I'm saying ignore the joint. Use everything for SU.

Look the thread title says this:

"Will North Africa be as Important in the Game as Historically?"

First off that is a fallacy because history proved it wasn't important. It was only PERCEIVED to be important. Big difference. A perception without hindsight is valid. A perception when you know the future is not.

This was why in HOI1, HOI2 and HOI3 NA was basically ignored. The OP and others thought putting resources there would make it matter. And in one concept they are right. You need to change reality in the game to make it matter because using hindsight and reality NA just doesn't matter.

And you think that the 400,000 troops that were dedicated to Africa were simply going to not do anything? Vichy France proved how ineffective it was with Operation overlord, those 100,000 troops landing in Africa, would have simply been dedicated to landing in Southern France instead probably much sooner then November 1942, and established a much better beachhead then they did in D-Day.

OR they simply go from Africa to Greece when Italy declares war on Greece, since all of these troops are available sitting around not doing anything. Now you have a beachhead in southern Europe much sooner. And that doesn't even take into account the less losses of transports because there is no need for thousands of transports feeding and fueling 400,000+ troops in Africa. Greece is a much harder place to fight for mobile units then Africa.

 

[PanzerCorps]

This is my whole point. And since we're playing a game that allows us to use hindsight that means NA is really unimportant.

Now the question that really should be asked is this.

Because we have 20/20 hindsight vision and know that NA and other places are basically meaningless, how can HOI4 change that hindsight and force or at least encourage the human German player to treat these various theaters like they were historically treated.

I think a very nice solution is what was proposed early on in this thread about making them important for morale. Because while the player does have hindsight, the nation they're playing as presumably doesn't, so they *will* face national unity and other such hits if they lose in those theaters, meaning that satisfies both gameplay and historical gripes.

 

[paranoidsteve]

North Africa is important to the game, as allies i always take it, even if i have to got to war against Vichy France. I follow Churchills' view about the soft underbelly of europe. Sicily then Italy are next, if just to remove Italy from the axis. The liberation of Greece can be a useful distraction to the axis, although i find pushing up through Yugoslavia is a logistical nightmare in HOI III. It is also essential if Spain joins the axis, before invading iberia from Gibratlar. Of course as the axis i make sure the allies don't do this to me.

 

[jju_57]

And you think that the 400,000 troops that were dedicated to Africa were simply going to not do anything? Vichy France proved how ineffective it was with Operation overlord, those 100,000 troops landing in Africa, would have simply been dedicated to landing in Southern France instead probably much sooner then November 1942, and established a much better beachhead then they did in D-Day.

OR they simply go from Africa to Greece when Italy declares war on Greece, since all of these troops are available sitting around not doing anything. Now you have a beachhead in southern Europe much sooner. And that doesn't even take into account the less losses of transports because there is no need for thousands of transports feeding and fueling 400,000+ troops in Africa. Greece is a much harder place to fight for mobile units then Africa.

And where does the allies get all that shipping and transports in 1942? Or do they swim there? Not to mention an invasion in Southern France while under Vichy control? And let me ask you a question. If Southern France was so easy then why did the Allies pick Sicily first and not just go there? Logistics!

And as I've said many times the Allies get 2 months max before all those German troops in SU come rushing back after their victory over the SU. How does 400,000 troops (which is unrealistic anyway) survive fighting 1 million German troops???

 

[CocoCincinnati]

Please. Do you really think 3-5 divisions would be enough because in late 1942 early 43 they only had the transports and landing craft to invade with that many. One major reason for the delay was because the Allies didn't have the ships or logistics to do D-Day.

And if you defeat SU by end of 1943 you have more than enough troops to win or take it back. Remember this strategy is based on one simple truth.

1) SU defeats Germany, Germany loses no matter what else happens.
2) Germany defeats SU in 1941 or 1942 Germany easily holds all of Europe no matter what else happens.

I noticed no one tried to argue that these 2 incontrovertible facts aren't true. So the only important thing is winning against the SU. Germany lost historically because they didn't realize this fact and didn't prepare or go all out to accomplish it. In our games we do and when SU falls it's game over. Every MP game knows this.

I don't really disagree with you about the strategy, Germany's only shot was to defeat the soviets and the earlier the better, just offering alternatives for discussion about What If there was no Africa campaign. Don't foget that by late 1943, the Allies had managed to put an entire army group in Italy. Whether Germany could have held all of Europe is certainly debatable, it would have depended on the resolve of the Allies to do the "heavy lifting" that the Soviets did historically, but that is a different discussion.

 

[Secret Master]

Because we have 20/20 hindsight vision and know that NA and other places are basically meaningless, how can HOI4 change that hindsight and force or at least encourage the human German player to treat these various theaters like they were historically treated.

Umm, would Italy be invaded sooner if the Axis just gives up North Africa?

I mean, call me a cynical old coot, but just handing North Africa to the Allies for free is just asking for an earlier invasion of at least Sicily. I also question whether Mussolini's regime can sustain the shame of just voluntarily leaving North Africa to the Allies without a fight.

Now, you are no doubt going to argue that defending Italy proper and Sicily would be easier than trying to hold North Africa. And I think you are right. But should Italy even be interested in staying allied to Germany if Germany's policy is to more or less screw Italy over in colonial terms?

Italy should be strongly reconsidering its involvement in the war if Germany wants Italy to just give up North Africa. And if Italy does just give up on it, it should be a serious blow to Mussolini's government. But I have no idea how to quantify that into HOI terms. NU and party popularity isn't going to cover it.

 

[jju_57]

Umm, would Italy be invaded sooner if the Axis just gives up North Africa?

I mean, call me a cynical old coot, but just handing North Africa to the Allies for free is just asking for an earlier invasion of at least Sicily. I also question whether Mussolini's regime can sustain the shame of just voluntarily leaving North Africa to the Allies without a fight.

Now, you are no doubt going to argue that defending Italy proper and Sicily would be easier than trying to hold North Africa. And I think you are right. But should Italy even be interested in staying allied to Germany if Germany's policy is to more or less screw Italy over in colonial terms?

Italy should be strongly reconsidering its involvement in the war if Germany wants Italy to just give up North Africa. And if Italy does just give up on it, it should be a serious blow to Mussolini's government. But I have no idea how to quantify that into HOI terms. NU and party popularity isn't going to cover it.

No I'm going to argue that this is a game and there is no shame involved in a game. The human playing as Germany, or the MP Axis team would gladly give up most, or even all of Italy to secure the defeat of the SU. Oncthe SU is gone recapture is easy.

The biggest mistake being made here is they are trying to base their arguments on how a real life person in 1940's Italy would react. In the game this person doesn't exist.

Your last sentence hits the dilemma perfectly. After all in the game do we really care if we lose Italy completely IF we defeat SU before 1942 ends?

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

And where does the allies get all that shipping and transports in 1942? Or do they swim there? Not to mention an invasion in Southern France while under Vichy control? And let me ask you a question. If Southern France was so easy then why did the Allies pick Sicily first and not just go there? Logistics!

And as I've said many times the Allies get 2 months max before all those German troops in SU come rushing back after their victory over the SU. How does 400,000 troops (which is unrealistic anyway) survive fighting 1 million German troops???

They already had the transports available, they launch Operation torch with almost 1000 ships, and the only reason they needed so many troop ships is because most of them came from the US. You give Africa, you create a much shorter staging point where once the beachhead is secure the troops could be unloaded very quickly.

there were 100,000 troops dedicated to operation torch alone, along with at least another 200,000 British troops in Libya.

"From mid-November 1942 to January 1943, 243,000 men and 856,000 long tons (870,000 t) of supplies and equipment arrived in Tunisia by sea and air."

Now without any enemy to fight, those troops can be stationed anywhere in Africa, which total's in the 300,000+ range.

If the allies had the capacity to launch such large invasions (including sicily not even 2 months after Tunisia) what stops them from launch such an invasion at much shorter distances? The French didn't put up a fight in operation torch or operation dragoon, so what is to stop a Operation dragoon in May/June/July of 1942? Germany certainly wouldn't be as prepared as they were in 1944, and now you have to dedicate the same amount of troops fighting in France instead of Africa.

 

[No idea]

And you think that the 400,000 troops that were dedicated to Africa were simply going to not do anything? Vichy France proved how ineffective it was with Operation overlord, those 100,000 troops landing in Africa, would have simply been dedicated to landing in Southern France instead probably much sooner then November 1942, and established a much better beachhead then they did in D-Day.

OR they simply go from Africa to Greece when Italy declares war on Greece, since all of these troops are available sitting around not doing anything. Now you have a beachhead in southern Europe much sooner. And that doesn't even take into account the less losses of transports because there is no need for thousands of transports feeding and fueling 400,000+ troops in Africa. Greece is a much harder place to fight for mobile units then Africa.

Well, had the allies go for south France instead of NA things would have been very different. For the worse.

The axis would have sent far more reinforcemnts, it would have had the ability to supply them, and the green us troops would have probably been pusehd into the sea. Simply see what happened at Kasserinne. In NA the allies had space to allow for mistakes. And with their naval and air superiority they crippled the axus supply chain. In south France they wouldnt Have space for errors and the axis supply chain would have be far more difficult to disrupt.

 

[Secret Master]

Your last sentence hits the dilemma perfectly. After all in the game do we really care if we lose Italy completely IF we defeat SU before 1942 ends?

If there are political consequences, then perhaps yes.

That's kind of what I'm getting at. The players aren't Italians in 1940, but they should be facing the same hard choices Mussolini and his cronies have to make. I just don't know how to make those political consequences meaningful.

I mean, would the game even support a "game over: you fail" ending if you are playing Mussolini's Italy and fall to a coup or revolution? Vic2 and EU4 don't work that way, nor did HOI3.

 

[Caesar15]

If there are political consequences, then perhaps yes.

That's kind of what I'm getting at. The players aren't Italians in 1940, but they should be facing the same hard choices Mussolini and his cronies have to make. I just don't know how to make those political consequences meaningful.

I mean, would the game even support a "game over: you fail" ending if you are playing Mussolini's Italy and fall to a coup or revolution? Vic2 and EU4 don't work that way, nor did HOI3.

Well a coup or revolution should have pretty disastrous effects, that should be a pretty good deterrent not to go along with decisions that could lead to such an event.

 

[krieger11b]

If I decide to bother with North Africa as Germany there are some very good benefits, although this requires getting Gibraltar. If I go for also it is before I invade the USSR, otherwise it's a huge pain to manage both and you drain too much fighting there.

Gibraltar requires more or less going through Spain unless you have some really long range transport aircraft, which is cheaper and less of a pain in the end then having to defend and occupy Spain also, plus I will have them anyways for an airborne invasion of the UK I do as soon as practical.

Going into the Med without a plan to take Gibraltar feels pointless as you will have to still deal with the Royal Navy that will destroy the supply ships and Navy of Italy, unless they make aircraft more historically close to their firepower against ships, especially if they have air to surface radar.

Anyways the other benefits.

1) You can go through Iran and have a chance to hit both India and the Caucuses, and from that you control most of the oil outside the US, certainly enough for the Axis War Machine.
2) Gibraltar is a wonderful place to use aircraft to pound allied convoys without mercy.
3) You can send U-Boots to the Indian Coast to wreak hell upon allied convoys.

So oil, security, and convoy murder are the benefits. You better try and make it a quick fight or else it's not worth the effort.

You have to make sure you have some transports in Italy before you start the war since you can't force the Italian Navy to transport your troops.

 

[ringhloth]

1) You can go through Iran and have a chance to hit both India and the Caucuses, and from that you control most of the oil outside the US, certainly enough for the Axis War Machine.

First, the idea of attacking through Iran to hit the Caucuses and India is pretty ridiculous. It's all very mountainous terrain, and the infrastructure is terrible, not to mention hundreds of miles from a port that can supply them. Remember that even if you have the Suez, Britain still has Aden and the Horn. No convoy would get through the Red Sea. Going from Beirut to Baku would be more distance than Konigsberg to Moscow. Beirut to Karachi is even more of a ridiculous target. Second, again, Iran was not neutral in 1942, the very earliest you could even pretend that the Axis would be able to reach them. It was occupied, and if the Germans or Italians got to the borders, they would be just facing the Red Army in some of the worst terrain you could attack through.