East Africa strategy

[Marcinos1985]

Greetings fellow commanders,
after playing few PBEM games I still can't create a solid plan against Italians in Abissynia and IEA. What should be a cakewalk for allies often transposes into a slog, especially if Axis player sends there some additional corps.
1. You may do nothing and keep him boxed in. Tempting, bc this area is strategically not that important. But then you will have to protect Sudan, Berbera, Nairobi and Mombasa constantly, these forces could(should) be used better.
2. Use RPA nad India soldiers and slowly grind him down. This is what I usually do, but to really pull this off you need Indian HQ, which takes time nad MPP. Moreover, if Axis player places his force well, you have a trenchwarfare ahead, where progress is just slow.
3. Transfer even more forces, e.g. those from Egypt. But then you weaken the front generally perceived as way more important, I don't think it's worth it.

Lately I have been toying with bringing Strategic Bombers there, to reduce Italian supply and I must admit it does work pretty well, but it's an expensive toy and I believe you need a HQ to use it fully.

What are your opinions on this theatre of war? Perhaps I am overestimating it's importance, but recently I felt it drains too much precious resources, which would be better spent on Tobruk/Malaya.
Or maybe I am just getting outplayed, very probable [:)]

[amandkm]

I lose against human players far more than win, but from my experience, East Africa can be useful for the allies, as victories here will reduce Italian Morale.

South Africans should definitely go there, and I usually toss in the French garrison from Madagascar. If I'm feeling aggressive, I will add an Indian unit or two as well.

One approach to take is to take Mogadishu, and siege the Italian HQ (assuming it is present), while standing on the defense elsewhere. Tends to be pretty inexpensive, and even if you have to reinforce, so will the Italians, and you can spare the MPP more than they, usually.

[HamburgerMeat]

I almost never bother with the area, either as allies or axis. It is difficult for the axis to transport more units there, so it is difficult to actually launch an offensive as the Italians.

As the allies, I would only consider sending troops there if N Africa is secure and I have no better targets. But there's almost always a more important place to fight. IMO it is a sideshow that you should not devote resources to.

[EarlyDoors]

Supply supply supply

Keep yours high, encircle and starve the enemy

[eightroomofelixir]

The key point at Abyssinia is supply, as there are only a few few cities and ports to support you while your Italian opponent controls most of them.

So technically, if one want to concentrate on East African front, they should: Bring a HQ with you; Take the major supply ports first then slowly move into inland; Siege the cities to reduce Italian supply.

For the HQ there's a South African one; if choose to use SA as main force and attack from south, take Mogadishu first for the supply, then small cities in Abyssinia, and surround/siege the Italian forces in Addis Ababa or Massawa after that. Put two units next to these cities to slowly reduce their supply level; make the British and France garrisons in East Africa do this job.

If you still have more spare MPPs to put in, you can also upgrade your SA units and send them to help your Egypt front.

[sveint]

Not worth the effort. Send nothing as Italy, send minimum needed as Allies.

Max I ever send is the South Africans. But I'd rather use those MPPs in Europe/North Africa.

[Mercutio]

I agree in the grand scheme this is so remote, don't go nuts. Why not take on all those other African countries? Because it isn't worth it compared to the cost/benefit elsewhere.

[Marcinos1985]

Thank you kindly for all answers. It seems I have exaggerated importance of East Africa a bit. Maybe because Allies can win there relatively early, while they take beating on other fronts for some quite time.

[Helsingor]

I have a slightly different take on East Africa.
If you are following a strategy of trying to cripple the Italians early, then it can be worthwhile to liberate Abyssinia.
Combined with a good hit on the Italian fleet, maybe an early surprise landing at an open NM objective in Italy or Africa, liberating East Africa can make the Italians extremely fragile. And you can use mostly second-line troops, like the Malayan corps, who won’t be doing anything else until they get creamed by the Japanese in late ‘41.

[FAHayek]

Advice only for the single player vs. AI...

Purchase a South African Army sometime after the game begins... the sooner the better as far as time is concerned.

Start reinforcing the Sudanese forces and South African corps/ HQ as resources allow.

Deploy your South African corps + the HQ + the UK Strategic bomber + Australian naval units on the coast of Africa when they are at strength/ morale. (Hopefully, before/ near the time the purchased Army can be deployed.)

You can take the ports of Italian East Afica without much fuss. (Make sure when attacking Mogadishu to knock down the supply level of the port and disperse with the Italian destroyer group... this takes a few turns.)

Take your allied garrisons (the French unit in Djibouti and the UK unit in British Somaliland) and move toward Abyssinia. The closest settlements/ towns down the road of each respective garrison should be empty of defensive units.)

The idea is to cut any supply that is flowing over/ between the Italian held area.

Your aim with the strategic bomber is to hit Addis Ababa continually and reduce supply.

The Sudanese forces will have to built up over time... thus while the purchased South American Army is being built... you can achieve reinforcing the Sundan UK forces.

Playing vs. the AI... this is really the only front, I see, where you can be effective in and achieve something that actually helps the Allies immediately and in the future (Italian morale loss.)

Once Abyssinia is totally conquered... the South American forces can be moved to Egypt/ Palestine/ Iraq depending on the date/ situation. (Best to transport the units via sea than walk them north.)


The ultimate challenge, I believe, is using the scattered-across-the-globe UK forces to the maximum. Lots of cost/ benefit and situational awareness. But their makeup, when concentrated, can be effective.

[James Taylor]

In a PtP game this is the perfect opportunity for the UK player to get his troops some experience. He can do it at his leisure and the Italians are cut off from gaining an additional reinforcements although replacements will be available.

The key is for the UK player to keep the Italians weak enough so he has the upper hand with combat results throughout the campaign. By rotating in the various types of units the UK player wishes to endow with experience it will be up to the Italian player to perpetuate the situation or not. Either way the UK player wins.

[taffjones]

Some times as the Axis player its good to send the additional Italian units to East Africa, as you can operate air units in.

It's nice to mix things up and try new things from time to time [:D]. some times it works other times it backfires badly on you. That's one of the great things about this game.

The options you can pick against your opponents decisions.

[Helsingor]

If, as the Alllied player, you choose not to try to take Addis, I find that at a minimum you should secure Mogadishu, protect Berbera and Djibouti and prevent the Italians from making an uncontested foray into Sudan. You’re going to need four corps to do that, and given that you can knock out the Italians with 6-7 corps, you might as well, IMO.