Supply in North Africa

[CL55AMG]

I am trying to figure out supplying North Africa. Supplies for North Africa historically arrived for the Axis and Allies at the ports of Tripoli and Port Said/Alexandria respectively. For MWIF supply it seems the minor ports along the coast have to be used, because it doesn't appear practical to run a chain of HQ's from the historical ports. Is that the case? If so, how do you bridge the large gaps between Benghazi/Homs with only two HQ's for attacks on either of those minor ports, without using the supply unit or Emergency HQ supply options?

[Oberost]

Because (correct me if i'm wrong) a unit in a coastal hex is always in supply as long as you have a convoy providing supply.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Oberost

Because (correct me if i'm wrong) a unit in a coastal hex is always in supply as long as you have a convoy providing supply.

You are indeed correct.

And a HQ in a coastal hex can also use sea supply, if available, and then that HQ can give supply to further units that are not on a coastal hex. Just be aware that desert hexes counts as two hexes.

[CL55AMG]

Thank you for clearing that up. The HQ supply abstraction in North Africa doesn't appear to really model the port tonnage limitations of the North African ports very well. So no port is required, if a HQ is on a coast hex and convoy path to supply source, to supply unlimited units that could trace a supply path to the HQ?

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: CL55AMG

Thank you for clearing that up. The HQ supply abstraction in North Africa doesn't appear to really model the port tonnage limitations of the North African ports very well. So no port is required, if a HQ is on a coast hex and convoy path to supply source, to supply unlimited units that could trace a supply path to the HQ?

Correct. However: the Royal Navy should be able to attack that convoy point in the Eastern Med every chance it gets. And Italy doesn't have that many convoy points at start to take losses. If the British lose twice the number of ships compared to the Axis, they are doing quite good. And there's the oil situation to consider too. The British have plenty. The Italians haven't. So every turn the Italian fleet sails is a win for the Allies...

[CL55AMG]

ORIGINAL: Centuur
Correct. However: the Royal Navy should be able to attack that convoy point in the Eastern Med every chance it gets. And Italy doesn't have that many convoy points at start to take losses. If the British lose twice the number of ships compared to the Axis, they are doing quite good. And there's the oil situation to consider too. The British have plenty. The Italians haven't. So every turn the Italian fleet sails is a win for the Allies...

Axis player has to maintain a convoy link to operate in North Africa whether it is through a port or HQ, so shipping and oil is always an issue. My question; is it realistic to model what is essentially a mobile 'Mulberry Harbor' (artificial harbor) as a HQ? Naval Supply Units (SIF Option 69) would seem to be required. North African minor ports were severely limited in the amount of tonnage that could be unloaded. Italians had to run smaller more numerous convoys that were harder to escort because of the limited port capacity of the Libyan ports. Tripoli could only do 45,000 tons per month, Benghazi and Tobruk 2,700 and 2,000 tons per month respectively. The Axis supply line in North Africa was tied to Tripoli. Allowing units to draw supply from any coastal hex seems to diminish the value of the Libyan ports.
Is there a reason for the Axis to hold the Libyan ports other than additional aircraft stacking?

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: CL55AMG

ORIGINAL: Centuur
Correct. However: the Royal Navy should be able to attack that convoy point in the Eastern Med every chance it gets. And Italy doesn't have that many convoy points at start to take losses. If the British lose twice the number of ships compared to the Axis, they are doing quite good. And there's the oil situation to consider too. The British have plenty. The Italians haven't. So every turn the Italian fleet sails is a win for the Allies...

Axis player has to maintain a convoy link to operate in North Africa whether it is through a port or HQ, so shipping and oil is always an issue. My question; is it realistic to model what is essentially a mobile 'Mulberry Harbor' (artificial harbor) as a HQ? Naval Supply Units (SIF Option 69) would seem to be required. North African minor ports were severely limited in the amount of tonnage that could be unloaded. Italians had to run smaller more numerous convoys that were harder to escort because of the limited port capacity of the Libyan ports. Tripoli could only do 45,000 tons per month, Benghazi and Tobruk 2,700 and 2,000 tons per month respectively. The Axis supply line in North Africa was tied to Tripoli. Allowing units to draw supply from any coastal hex seems to diminish the value of the Libyan ports.
Is there a reason for the Axis to hold the Libyan ports other than additional aircraft stacking?

Of course there is. A port which is in range gives the Axis the possibility to move an HQ a couple of hexes inland.

I think you are too much focused on the ports itself. In MWIF, the supply situation overseas all depends on convoys which have to be in place (if you play with limited overseas supply). The difficulties for getting supply for the Axis depends on those convoys. Supply will simply be cut off a lot of times, thus recreating the problems the Axis had in Lybia.

[CL55AMG]

ORIGINAL: Centuur
Of course there is. A port which is in range gives the Axis the possibility to move an HQ a couple of hexes inland.

I think you are too much focused on the ports itself. In MWIF, the supply situation overseas all depends on convoys which have to be in place (if you play with limited overseas supply). The difficulties for getting supply for the Axis depends on those convoys. Supply will simply be cut off a lot of times, thus recreating the problems the Axis had in Libya.

So, as long as I keep a convoy point in Eastern Med and Italian Coast Sea Areas ( along with proper air/sea escorts), I can send as many corps and armies as I want and as long as they stay on the coast or within supply range of HQ they are in supply?
After the fall of France, what is to stop the Axis from sending massive force to North Africa?

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: CL55AMG

ORIGINAL: Centuur
Of course there is. A port which is in range gives the Axis the possibility to move an HQ a couple of hexes inland.

I think you are too much focused on the ports itself. In MWIF, the supply situation overseas all depends on convoys which have to be in place (if you play with limited overseas supply). The difficulties for getting supply for the Axis depends on those convoys. Supply will simply be cut off a lot of times, thus recreating the problems the Axis had in Libya.

So, as long as I keep a convoy point in Eastern Med and Italian Coast Sea Areas ( along with proper air/sea escorts), I can send as many corps and armies as I want and as long as they stay on the coast or within supply range of HQ they are in supply?
After the fall of France, what is to stop the Axis from sending massive force to North Africa?

Nothing, if you don't send in the Royal Navy to attack the convoys and transports which are needed to supply and transport the units to North Africa. Too many new players think that the Italian BB's and cruisers are the ones to destroy in the Med. But if the CW can choose a target, the transports should be at the top of your list, followed by convoy points. It's better to choose a zero box with an Italian convoy point and a lonely escorting cruiser than the whole Italian BB fleet sitting in the four box if the CW has found the Italians and the Italians haven't found the CW.
And there's oil to consider too. The Euroaxis haven't got a lot of it and the Italian fleet and airforce will use a lot of oil protecting the precious TRS and convoys.

Italian proper escorts? Ignore them. Not important. Damage to the CW ships? Repair them. Losses? If the CW sink 1 BB and the Italians sink 2 BB's, the CW is winning the game. And for cruisers it's even 1 to 3...

[alexvand]

The Allies often don't mind if the Axis send lots of troops to Africa. Cut the supply lines and those troops can end up in big trouble.

Remember that WiF abstracts a lot of things. All ports are considered the same, but when you look at what happens in Africa during play it still simulates the struggles anyone has of supplying the troops.

[CL55AMG]

I saw this post that caught my eye
Rule changes from WifFFE to WiFCE

HQ's are limited in providing secondary supply through the coast, you must take a port for the supply to be unlimited

Couldn't find any details, but it would seem address the gaminess of have 15 or 20 German/Italian corps in North Africa and not controlling a single port. I think for secondary supply to be unlimited a major port must be controlled. Minor port and coastal hex supply would have some sort of limited supply capabilities.

Option 26 - Amphibious Units, helps mitigate the issue by requiring TRS units at sea to embark/disembark land units from port or HQ. MAR, infantry class divisions and units embarking on AMPHs are not subject to the restriction.

[paulderynck]

MWiF does not have the CE rule about limiting HQ supply where no port is available. It does have the Amphib rules.