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

[krieger11b]

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.

I usually hold the shortest defensive line between the Caspian Sea and Indian Ocean and leave it there until it's mop up time for the UK, in which case the entire ME and the Horn is under axis control. We could make another thread on how India isn't worth it due to how stupidly undervalued it is. It also doesn't matter if Iran is neutral or not, if you are Axis you can declare war on them as you wish, I don't see it's neutrality as any relevance.

I send mountain troops to take it since that is the area they will do the most fighting until Army Group South Arrives, with some AT guns and Artillery, in case the Soviets want to do something really stupid and suicidal. Put a logistics wizard there and take the port there on the Caucuses (can't remember it's name) if you have to, the supply issue isn't that bad, unless you intend to send Panzers and such screaming through in large numbers.

I also did not say that my entire attack was focused around one main thrust through the Caucasus, that would be idiotic, the point I made was the take the oil fields. From there you can wait in a defensive line in the mountain until Army Group Center arrives.

 

[ringhloth]

I usually hold the shortest defensive line between the Caspian Sea and Indian Ocean and leave it there until it's mop up time for the UK, in which case the entire ME and the Horn is under axis control. We could make another thread on how India isn't worth it due to how stupidly undervalued it is. It also doesn't matter if Iran is neutral or not, if you are Axis you can declare war on them as you wish, I don't see it's neutrality as any relevance.

I send mountain troops to take it since that is the area they will do the most fighting until Army Group South Arrives, with some AT guns and Artillery, in case the Soviets want to do something really stupid and suicidal. Put a logistics wizard there and take the port there on the Caucuses (can't remember it's name) if you have to, the supply issue isn't that bad, unless you intend to send Panzers and such screaming through in large numbers.

I also did not say that my entire attack was focused around one main thrust through the Caucasus, that would be idiotic, the point I made was the take the oil fields. From there you can wait in a defensive line in the mountain until Army Group Center arrives.

In HoI3, yes. In real life, invading Russia from the Caucuses, no matter how far or how strong, isn't plausible, especially not when your supply lines would already be stretched far past the maximum.

 

[sepoquro]

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

But in Hearts of Iron 2 and 3 Northern Africa is useless.
Egypt has some value with a few IC and resources and the Suez channel.
But the Italian parts of Northern Africa is just a complete wasteland...
Zero resources or IC....
Therefore most people in HoI 2/3 if they were in the Axis just forgott about Africa and focused sole on Europe.

How will you make the desert warfare in Northern Africa meaningful in Hearts of Iron 4?

I don't think North Africa was important at all during the war... if you look up the data the Germans sent only a small number of troops to fight in North Africa, and there were really only two reasons they even did that:
1. They wanted to cut off British access to the Suez Canal, which would only serve to harass the Allies.
2. They wanted to harass the Allies in Africa because that was one of the only places Allied troops were operating in at the time and it would inevitably serve as a launching ground for attacks into Italy or southern France.

 

[krieger11b]

In HoI3, yes. In real life, invading Russia from the Caucuses, no matter how far or how strong, isn't plausible, especially not when your supply lines would already be stretched far past the maximum.

That's not fair, you didn't say you were talking about reality and not the game

 

[Kovax]

3. They wanted to keep Italy in the fight. Losing in NA would have been a crushing blow to Mussolini and his Fascist government. In essence, NA wasn't important for GER, but it was for ITA, so GER supported its ally. The few divisions sent were what was deemed enough to stabilize the situation, and never intended to actually take NA. Rommel had other ideas about that, though.

The trick in the game is to make NA important for Italy, via resources or other incentives/penalties. Whether GER wants to support its ally or not is up to the German player or AI.

 

[yerm]

Some sort of incentive, based probably in national unity or the like, for Italy to connect its colonial empire and penalty for losing the colonies, could accomplish the goal of making north Africa strategically important without being materially useful. Taking Egypt would be a nuisance to Britain perhaps, but connecting Libya and Ethiopia from Italy's perspective would cement Mussolini's legitimacy. These kinds of incentives can help encourage nations to go for targets that aren't necessarily inherently significant. Italy in Africa, Japan taking crappier non-DEI islands, Germany taking its Lebensraum, etc. It can apply both ways - France and Italy both should probably take legitimacy hits for losing north Africa, and both should feel really good about getting Egypt (France in a wild alt history outcome), while someone like Romania probably shouldn't care about Algeria or Libya whatsoever.

The issue here of course becomes railroading. What if a human Italy wants to dump its colonies and try to barrel its way east, actually winning vs Greece and then on to Turkey? Should they be FORCED to care about actually holding onto north or east Africa because of obscene penalties for losing them, even if they come with great success elsewhere? For this reason, perhaps a tie to the trees might be the best way, so Italy could choose whether or not pursue mare nostrum or its colonial empire or just go a different way.

 

[jdavis86]

In HOI3 terms: strategic modifiers. Mostly made use of by modders.

 

[jju_57]

The issue here of course becomes railroading. What if a human Italy wants to dump its colonies and try to barrel its way east, actually winning vs Greece and then on to Turkey? Should they be FORCED to care about actually holding onto north or east Africa because of obscene penalties for losing them, even if they come with great success elsewhere? For this reason, perhaps a tie to the trees might be the best way, so Italy could choose whether or not pursue mare nostrum or its colonial empire or just go a different way.

Exactly. Would Italy care if they lost Libya but gained Greece, Turkey, Yugoslavia? Or if they gained say Spain? What if Germany promised Italy complete control over all of the Balkans if they focused on SU instead of NA?

 

[shri]

Italy can have 2 sets of goals maybe- one path leads to colonies, navy and airforce and weak army and
other leads to conquest of Albania, Greece, Yugoslavia etc and a strong army, decent airforce but with loss of colonies and weaker naval focus.
In short- Italy can pull back from East and North Africa just before entering the war at a cost that - it is forced to attack yugoslavia and greece within a year of entering the war or face NM losses.
In terms of IC, resources etc .. Yugoslavia and Greece are more helpful also, the German Air and Ground forces can help them in this conquest unlike in Africa.

 

[jdavis86]

Italy can have 2 sets of goals maybe- one path leads to colonies, navy and airforce and weak army and
other leads to conquest of Albania, Greece, Yugoslavia etc and a strong army, decent airforce but with loss of colonies and weaker naval focus.
In short- Italy can pull back from East and North Africa just before entering the war at a cost that - it is forced to attack yugoslavia and greece within a year of entering the war or face NM losses.
In terms of IC, resources etc .. Yugoslavia and Greece are more helpful also, the German Air and Ground forces can help them in this conquest unlike in Africa.

Dont think those things should be mutually exclusive.

 

[tommylotto]

What might be a clever (or a gamey) strategy in Hoi3 or HoiIV does not necessarily mean it would have been plausible in real life. From a game perspective, the best strategy for the Axis (as a single entity) might be to abandon Africa and concentrate on the Soviet Union. However, that would be a weakness in the game mechanics as it would fail to simulate the political reality in Italy at the time. Since its unification, Italy had been fighting wars to expand its colonial holdings. The "empire" was critical for public morale. To think they would have just abandoned those hard won patches of desert to assist Hitler against Stalin based upon a promise from Hitler (a promise from Hitler!?!) that they would benefit later, is just implausible.

In my Hoi3 mod I went to get lengths to simulate this. Italy will suffer massive dissent and national unity hits for losing Eritrea, Somalia, Cyrenaica and Tripolitania. So abandoning East Africa is very very painful and abandoning all of Africa is close to crippling. However, there are countervailing boosts for successes. Taking Algeria, Malta, Suez and Gibraltar will give you boosts that just about make up for losing East Africa. So, giving up on East Africa is a viable strategy, painful, but viable. However, just walking away from Africa is a recipe for disaster.

 

[jju_57]

What might be a clever (or a gamey) strategy in Hoi3 or HoiIV does not necessarily mean it would have been plausible in real life. From a game perspective, the best strategy for the Axis (as a single entity) might be to abandon Africa and concentrate on the Soviet Union. However, that would be a weakness in the game mechanics as it would fail to simulate the political reality in Italy at the time. Since its unification, Italy had been fighting wars to expand its colonial holdings. The "empire" was critical for public morale. To think they would have just abandoned those hard won patches of desert to assist Hitler against Stalin based upon a promise from Hitler (a promise from Hitler!?!) that they would benefit later, is just implausible.

In my Hoi3 mod I went to get lengths to simulate this. Italy will suffer massive dissent and national unity hits for losing Eritrea, Somalia, Cyrenaica and Tripolitania. So abandoning East Africa is very very painful and abandoning all of Africa is close to crippling. However, there are countervailing boosts for successes. Taking Algeria, Malta, Suez and Gibraltar will give you boosts that just about make up for losing East Africa. So, giving up on East Africa is a viable strategy, painful, but viable. However, just walking away from Africa is a recipe for disaster.

Italy can completely collapse and go civil war as it doesn't matter. Once SU is resolved all of that can be fixed and put back into place. So far I've seen nothing that changes this. I doubt if there is a way to resolve this.

Let me put it this way. In a SP game playing as Germany I have zero incentive to care what happens in Italy. I give them nothing and let them do what they want. After I defeat SU I can help them all they want.

In MP games a smart Italy player does everything they can to help Germany defeat the SU. The only thing they care about is protecting Rome. And once SU falls most MP games end anyway.

 

[yerm]

Italy can completely collapse and go civil war as it doesn't matter. Once SU is resolved all of that can be fixed and put back into place. So far I've seen nothing that changes this. I doubt if there is a way to resolve this.

Let me put it this way. In a SP game playing as Germany I have zero incentive to care what happens in Italy. I give them nothing and let them do what they want. After I defeat SU I can help them all they want.

In MP games a smart Italy player does everything they can to help Germany defeat the SU. The only thing they care about is protecting Rome. And once SU falls most MP games end anyway.

I don't know that this is a problem in concept, but rather in application. The problem isn't that Germany vs SU is really what WWII ends up being all about. The problem is that the best way for Italy to help the Axis win this... is to completely abandon Italy? The problem here is that this doesn't sound overwhelmingly different, in concept, to saying Germany should just fortify the Rhine, abandon the west, and get to Moscow before say Frankfurt falls and it's a win.

I liked, for one example, the anniversary edition of Axis and Allies, because it added Italy as its own nation and gave it national goals that were obscenely large compared to its base cash. Having undisputed control of 3 sea zones means nothing normally, but the bonus was half your base production. Taking Gibraltar might actually be worth something, even though its value is 0. Abandoning Africa in favor of just funneling it all up the Balkans and Black Sea to overwhelming the USSR means Italy is hamstrung. This kind of concept, in a general sense, is what I'd hope for with hoi4 - the abandonment of core regions for no reason other than to go all in is not the optimal strategy.

 

[jju_57]

I don't know that this is a problem in concept, but rather in application. The problem isn't that Germany vs SU is really what WWII ends up being all about. The problem is that the best way for Italy to help the Axis win this... is to completely abandon Italy? The problem here is that this doesn't sound overwhelmingly different, in concept, to saying Germany should just fortify the Rhine, abandon the west, and get to Moscow before say Frankfurt falls and it's a win.

False analogy because Northern France, Low Countries etc. provide necessary resources and IC (HOI3). And I'm not really talking about completely abandoning Italy. NA can be ignored because there is nothing there. Rome like Northern France should have token defenses. Plus remember the timeframe here. We're talking about from May 1941 till at most late 1942 or when SU falls, whichever is first. So if SU falls in 1941 France and NA can have the troops back. So if Italy or Northern France does fall you can get it back. But you have minimal forces to prevent a single division from taking over the whole place.

It really boils down to every possible resource is devoted to defeating the SU. We know from history that not doing this means ultimate defeat. So the only logical conclusion is to go all out against the SU, get a win and then the rest is easy. Every MP game basically follows this pattern.

 

[shri]

Dont think those things should be mutually exclusive.

Well if you select both you have an atrocious army, obsolete air-force and a Tarantinoed Navy, that is what will and should happen if both goals are pursued by Italy.

Historically, i agree they pursued both, but we are playing Historical Plausibility otherwise AXIS never wins.
If you want AXIS to win, Italy has to pull its weight in the Balkans and later Souther USSR with the minor AXIS allies so that Germany defeats the USSR.
Everything else is incidental, if USSR falls, UK itself can be defeated using those enormous resources freed for Germany due to "Bitter Peace" (though in game as per my knowledge there should be assassination attempts on Stalin if USSR weakens, German backed and internal communist ones, only if they succeed should Bitter peace fire else it seems wrong to fire).

 

[jdavis86]

Well if you select both you have an atrocious army, obsolete air-force and a Tarantinoed Navy, that is what will and should happen if both goals are pursued by Italy.

Historically, i agree they pursued both, but we are playing Historical Plausibility otherwise AXIS never wins.
If you want AXIS to win, Italy has to pull its weight in the Balkans and later Souther USSR with the minor AXIS allies so that Germany defeats the USSR.
Everything else is incidental, if USSR falls, UK itself can be defeated using those enormous resources freed for Germany due to "Bitter Peace" (though in game as per my knowledge there should be assassination attempts on Stalin if USSR weakens, German backed and internal communist ones, only if they succeed should Bitter peace fire else it seems wrong to fire).

Haha "Tarantinoed Navy", love that!

It is complicated of course. For instance, I don't think Italy failed in North Africa or elsewhere because they pursued both per se. It was more so due to really bad leadership and poor tactical decisions. How the game chooses to represent that is another question I suppose.

The smarter decision from a strategic standpoint, as we've already established in this thread, is to peace out from Africa altogether. And in fact, that is the best Italy HOI3 multiplayer strategy too. Defend the boot, and help Germany elsewhere in Europe or Russia.

On the other hand, it is totally possible for an Italy player to have his cake and eat it too in single player.

I just don't like the idea of the player being railroaded.

 

[shri]

Haha "Tarantinoed Navy", love that!

It is complicated of course. For instance, I don't think Italy failed in North Africa or elsewhere because they pursued both per se. It was more so due to really bad leadership and poor tactical decisions. How the game chooses to represent that is another question I suppose.

The smarter decision from a strategic standpoint, as we've already established in this thread, is to peace out from Africa altogether. And in fact, that is the best Italy HOI3 multiplayer strategy too. Defend the boot, and help Germany elsewhere in Europe or Russia.

On the other hand, it is totally possible for an Italy player to have his cake and eat it too in single player.

I just don't like the idea of the player being railroaded.

Well, the Tarantinoed was a reference both to -"Taranto Operation by Cunningham's Fleet" and the gory violence of Kill Bill by Q.Tarantino.

With 1 BB sunk, 2 BB and 2 HC damaged, the Italian navy was effectively neutralised at the very start of the war. (Italy had only 6 BBs at start of War + 19 Cruisers - HC and LCs, so this loss was critical)

In Single Player (as Italy) these factors do not matter as let's face it, the AI is useless; it allows itself to be enveloped and encircled. (till HOI3 this is what happened, with 2 Armor and 2 Motorised you could actually win North Africa as Italy if you play well).
But overall if it is Multiplayer or even Historical repetition/plausibility then the Italians have to abandon Africa, it is simply not possible to ensure supplies to East Africa beyond 1940 and to North Africa beyond 1941 and that means you lose half your army, whole airforce and navy for some sort of "holding operation".
The Balkans and Southern Italy can be defended with a fraction of that cost and the remaining can be sent to Crimea/Caucasus to help the Germans.

 

[paranoidsteve]

When playing as Italy in a multiplayer, i procrastinate to my axis allies that i am not ready for the war to start so cant really help....then when the Russian invasion starts i join the allies and invade It works a treat if the German player don't pay attention. Back channel TS helps a lot

If achievements are included in the game...Back Stabbing Bar steward would be my favourite.

 

[jju_57]

When playing as Italy in a multiplayer, i procrastinate to my axis allies that i am not ready for the war to start so cant really help....then when the Russian invasion starts i join the allies and invade It works a treat if the German player don't pay attention. Back channel TS helps a lot

If achievements are included in the game...Back Stabbing Bar steward would be my favourite.

That will work ONE time. Then either a house rule prevents it or you don't get Italy.

 

[Secret Master]

That will work ONE time. Then either a house rule prevents it or you don't get Italy.

Or you get invaded by Germany in 1939 and the Allies let it happen for the Lulz, because let's face it. It's damn funny.