Bring the Afrika Korps back to Africa!

[Ktonos]

In the World in Europe, the DAK was deployed directly in Africa, around Tripoli or Bhengazi, depending where the British offensive (if any) was at. In WaW, its deployed around mainland Italian ports.

I strongly prefer the WiE version, and here is why:

In practice, most players, use the units in the East. They avoid the shipping costs and just move them to help against the Russians. IF Axis players need/want to send German units to North Africa, they would had already have done it, as there is no reason to wait for the DAK event (shipping costs are the same, so why dont do it earlier than later). Before, in WiE, Axis players had an incentive to not send stuff there, and wait until the December '40 event, as the DAK would form free of shipping costs there. So these Afrika units, where indeed.. "African". Other than that, Libya/Egypt front was a rush against time for the British - a rush to take as much possible against the italians, before that dreaded date of December '40 that the big bad Desert Fox boogieman spawned in front of them. It gave a certain dynamic and chrome to this front.

And if that could shift the situation a bit towards the Axis, we could have some confining parameters installed - eg the event will fire from Dec 40 onwards, only if Tripoly port is on full supply - so the UK could be incentivised to blocade it. Or smthing like that.

[Brian72]

It's interesting you posted this. In our current game my italian forces in north africa were wiped and I made the foolish decision to send Rommel there and try to retake what was clearly lost which was a catastrophe for me. I lost the entire africa corp including Rommel quickly and decisively. I am growing a dislike for all the decision events in this game as it leads to people memorizing timings and unit deployments and leads to expliots due to that. I feel like the aftrica corp arrives too late in Italy and due to its half strength and you have to transport it to africa which is a feat of its own, by the time you get there against a good allied opponent its too late. Better to just send Rommel against the russians and forget north africa entirely. I agree with your assessment. If the devs want a war in north africa they need to put the desert fox there directly and possible rebalance the region as a result. that way if you want rommel in russia instead you have to transport his division there. I think that would be better. my just 2 cents.

[archmache]

Personally I like it how it is.

Allies try to block ports with ships and Axis have to commit to clear the Med. axis were not prepared for NA as they were all in France and only after loss of tobruck did they mobilize. If Italy and germ buy maritime bombers, all that is needed is 1 get pnzer from fall geb and Egypt is lost. Allies can't do anything against that unless they ultra commit. Putting them in Egypt would be a bit gamey IMO

[taffjones]

I argued for this a long time ago but the only change that was made was the event was brought forward to Oct.

Which is detrimental to the AK because Germany usually makes a couple of tech upgrades around that time.

My original argument was that

1 - They arrived at 1/2 strength (1 turn to re-enforce them)
2 - Not all of the units deploy next to a port hex (Another turn to get all of the units to a port ready to transport)
3 - Germany doesn't have enough transport slots available to ship them all over in one turn.

So the Allies could flood the Med with ships and block all the ports and intercept them. Not worth the risk for the Axis, so as it is now it's a no brainer for the Axis to send them to Russia so Russia needed to be buffed up to stand a chance of holding on.
Also they quite often deploy in Northern Italy conveniently ready to take out Yugo, again freeing up units for a early DoW against Russia.

So I think if the change was made and reverted back to Dec, it would help Russia out a bit.

So I am in favour

[Jackmck]

As it stands now for WaW, DE 636 – Germany: Form the Afrika Korps for service in the Mediterranean?- is the most trival DE ever. No one ever says "no" to this.

A decision like DE 703 – Italy: Deploy II Corps in Abyssinia Or Italy? or DE 102 – UK: Deploy 7th Armoured in Egypt or the UK? in which the Axis player could likewise choose for the AK to be placed in Italy or Africa would be an actual decision.

Either way, the Axis will get the AK and this should be reflected in the upcoming unit builds so that an Axis player can't cheat to exceed force pool limitations for an extra Armour unit and extra Tactical Bomber unit which gives the Axis an early unfair advantage in Russia- especially considering the new rules for air units.

Recent experience has been that the USSR is still a little too weak- those extra units make a huge difference so eliminating this loophole for the Axis player to cheat force pool limits would help somewhat.

[BillRunacre]

I recall that the main reason for having them deploy in Italy in this game was because some players complained that the automatic deployment of the DAK in Libya in War in Europe amounted to automatic teleportation, providing the Allies with no opportunity to impede them from sailing across the Med. Going back to that risks annoying people who think the Allies should have a chance to intercept them... so it's a difficult one.

It was also the case that sometimes Allied players were able to prevent the DAK from deploying, or smash it up easily when it did. This is less of an issue now than formerly, but the idea behind the Axis shipping it themselves is that they are in control of when, where or even whether to send it to Libya.

Just to clarify one minor point: the event has a 50% chance of happening in September, 50% in October 1940.

[Ktonos]

Well its no more of a "teleportation" than any other event with unit spawn overseas your mainland - like the 7th Armored, or the US armor in Egypt, or the Narvik commandos, etc. Yes DAK could be gamed to be in a position to be smashed, but this can be easily dealt with -just set the destination to Tripoli, not Benghazi. If the UK is about to get Tripoli, Axis player can choose not to take the event anyways. Regarding the issue of not being able to intercept its shipping, well, if the Allies are in a position to actually intercept units shipping to Tripoli, or stop them from attempting it, DAK is toast anyways.

It just bugs me that before, the event was equal to "give me some German units in Africa", while now is "give me some German units".

But anyways, it seems opposition on this is maybe too strong

[Tanaka]

Well its no more of a "teleportation" than any other event with unit spawn overseas your mainland - like the 7th Armored, or the US armor in Egypt, or the Narvik commandos, etc. Yes DAK could be gamed to be in a position to be smashed, but this can be easily dealt with -just set the destination to Tripoli, not Benghazi. If the UK is about to get Tripoli, Axis player can choose not to take the event anyways. Regarding the issue of not being able to intercept its shipping, well, if the Allies are in a position to actually intercept units shipping to Tripoli, or stop them from attempting it, DAK is toast anyways.

It just bugs me that before, the event was equal to "give me some German units in Africa", while now is "give me some German units".

But anyways, it seems opposition on this is maybe too strong

I also prefer the WIE version and it has always bugged me that WIE and WAW have completely different events. But I guess the reason for this is the difference in the size of the maps. Easier for the allies to move further in N.Africa in WAW to take out DAK deployment. I never experienced my DAK being destroyed on deployment but understand some others have. I guess they did poorly with the Italians. Correct me if I 'm wrong but I think the Devs did move the deployment to Tripoli before they just scrapped the whole event altogether because the allies could still take out? I do agree there is less choice now (I tend always use some units in Yugo and Russia now) and I'm not even sure the AI ships DAK to N.Africa now? I think the shipping argument is moot as long as WIE auto deploys to N. Africa but WAW does not. It needs to be the same in both games. Yes this is a tough one to please everyone and I'm not sure what an easy solution would be...

[Elessar2]

IIRC many patches ago Rommel & Co. spawned a bit farther east than they do now, and if the Allied player dumped a bunch of units in North Africa and did a big push against the Italians they could lurk right next to the spawn points and nail the AK before they could build up their readiness and entrench. But that risks a Sea Lion...

I am definitely in the boat (heh) of having everybody ship everything everywhere with no more Star Trek beam-in's (note I love ST), for human players at least. In a recent AAR the British player tried to contest the central Med to deny Axis supply, but the latter had almost all of his air force down there and tore the RN apart. Planes don't need to be shipped, you see. [The German player just needs to sneak an HQ in there as soon as the Italians enter the war]

Point is there are often counters to many common strategies. If there is a quirk or a bug responsible then yeah patch the thing out of existence, but I say let the players play.

[Mithrilotter]

There are game events that must happen for the game to play well. This is despite the fact that that these events historically happened, when they shouldn’t have been able to happen. Norway shouldn’t have been conquered by Germany, which had an inferior navy. France should have been a World War 1 stalemate, instead of a quick conquest.

Germany did historically ship the Afrika Korps safely into Libya. I prefer having the option of the Afrika Korps shipping (or teleporting) safely into Libya. I like Star Trek also. I prefer to spend game time playing, not micromanaging shipping.
Long ago, I played an excellent board game called The Russian Campaign. It had an interesting option to bring the Africa Korps to Russia instead of sending it to assist Italy. The penalty was that all Italian units were immediately removed from play and none would arrive later. The premise was that with the quick loss of Libya, Mussolini would soon be overthrown and Italy would withdraw prematurely from the war.

French National Morale suffers if the UK doesn’t send the BEF to France. I do feel that if Germany doesn’t send the Africa Korps into Libya, Italy should suffer a significant hit to their National Morale. This would make the option of sending the Africa Korps to Russia, more painful. In my opinion, Russia currently still seems weaker that it should be.
I would further suggest that if the Africa Korps was not sent to Libya, that if Italian DE 702 (Form an Italian Expeditionary Force) is chosen, the IEF be formed in Italy for homeland defense.

[ThunderLizard11]

I prefer arrival in N. Africa like WiE. Right now hardy ever bring to N. Africa because of costs and risk of loss. Usually allies have blocked ports to under five strength by Oct '41 so not possible.

[go_rascals]

Let the AK start in NA but increase the MPP cost to reflect the difficulty in transport.

[taffjones]

Thunderlizzard 11 and go_rascals

Exactly what I meant in my earlier post.

Push the DE back to December and increase the MPP cost.

This would also help Russia. As the AK and Rommel would have to be transported back to Europe if the Axis want to go all in on Russia with the additional cost to the Axis of

1 - The increased cost of the DE

2 - The cost, time (2 turns due to the lack of available transport slots) and risk of transporting them back to Europe

[Ktonos]

Plus, have them always deploy in Tripoli instead of Benghazi, as was historical. The biggest problem was this anyways, with both ends of the narrative:

"DAK suddenly arrives and destroys UK army": Spawning in Benghazi many times utterly turn the tables and destroy a rampant UK push who are about to take Torbruk - but has some units at low supply at the moment of DAK arrival. Spawning in Tripoli could not mess with this - yes, it could turn the tables, but on a more gradual manner. More of an equalizer in fact.

"Allied players game the DAK arrival to smash it": This tactic has to do with while UK has grabbed all of East Libya, they leave a specific town in Italian hands (I think Gazalla?), so the DAK spawns amidst the advancing UK units. If DAK arrives always in Tripoli, this cant be gamed.

[ThunderLizard11]

Plus, have them always deploy in Tripoli instead of Benghazi, as was historical. The biggest problem was this anyways, with both ends of the narrative:

"DAK suddenly arrives and destroys UK army": Spawning in Benghazi many times utterly turn the tables and destroy a rampant UK push who are about to take Torbruk - but has some units at low supply at the moment of DAK arrival. Spawning in Tripoli could not mess with this - yes, it could turn the tables, but on a more gradual manner. More of an equalizer in fact.

"Allied players game the DAK arrival to smash it": This tactic has to do with while UK has grabbed all of East Libya, they leave a specific town in Italian hands (I think Gazalla?), so the DAK spawns amidst the advancing UK units. If DAK arrives always in Tripoli, this cant be gamed.

It would be more dynamic having more action in ME. Some top players still go strong in ME though.

[Jackmck]

Well the point is to have this be an actual decision- the Axis player chooses where- not if. The costs are incurred either way, but I don't think there is any objection because no one would not choose to have those extra units.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Let me add to Jackmck comment, in general sense: Is it time to go over all the DEs? The majority are "always" being selected by players whereas they're obvious. Maybe an overhaul to make them truly tempting to "go the other way". Bring variety to game play.

[Ktonos]

Strongly agree. I was close to making another thread for this, but didn't cause I didnt want to spam the forum with my suggestions.

The WW1 game has a great decision tree, with each one having weighted options with pros and cons.

Both WiE and WaW, have very few dilemmas in their NDs.

For example, Invade Norway. A no brainer as is. Historically, the Kriegsmarine took heavy casualties there. If you have the option of taking Norway result to a series of hits to the KM ships (like in Soviet Winter), then maybe the Axis player has a choice to make. Plus, it would be historical.

There is space for much improvement via tinkering the decisions, plus, game could make some strong changes here and there on other fields, that may tilt the balance towards one of the two sides, and use this tinkering to balance it back.

[SittingDuck]

There is a huge weakness (along with many smaller strengths) to an event-driven strategy game. Namely, everyone 'knows' what happened and thus is supposed to happen. And if the program in AI vs AI does replicate it decently, we say it is 'historical'. A good initial goal.

But the minute a player does something that wasn't historically done/accomplished/attempted, then the game is ahistorical. Except the scripting keeps rolling, generally, along those history lines. And the player is even more uber powerful because of this knowledge (aside from strategic flexibility and ability to 'learn' the AI).

There is no perfect answer, but building variability and alternate strategy paths increases unpredictability. But... that freaks people out, because (and of course I am talking Player vs. AI here... gennnnnerally), "hey, that didn't or wouldn't have happened." It's a case of double-standards. The AI is held to going historical, the player (who should be better anyhow) can do as he pleases.

Why on earth does Japan HAVE to bomb Pearl Harbor? Oh, because it was historical. And that ensures the game rolls a certain way, of course.

Me, I am scripting a lot of variability into my game. For example, the 'Russian Winter' event. WHY just that historic time frame would the winter be so harsh. Why not 1939 or 1944? But... people will wait for it, game it out.

Events aren't 'bad', per se. But the limits that a player base puts on developers because something has to be 'historical' (basically so they can be as a-historical as possible) creates a limitation. Then if there isn't some logical variability put into the scripting, then it just gets so predictable. And in the end, it makes for silliness.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Since Erwin Rommel was so good in the sand, here's what could be done.

When Rommel is in North Africa, his rating goes to 10.
When Rommel is not, his rating drops to 5.
When Rommel is in France/Germany, his rating drops to 3, for he's shopping for shoes during D-Day.