Campaign For North Africa 40D-43

[warspite1]

A question to the designers.

Where is this Lady in the game please? [&:]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

A question to the designers.

Where is this Lady in the game please? [&:]

The OOB came directly from the SPI game of the same name. It didn't have the HMS Warspite in it. Probably lots of ships came and went throughout the campaign, and they had a counter budget.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

A question to the designers.

Where is this Lady in the game please? [&:]

The OOB came directly from the SPI game of the same name. It didn't have the HMS Warspite in it. Probably lots of ships came and went throughout the campaign, and they had a counter budget.

warspite1

Counter restrictions for board games were (are) unfortunate but understandable, but to not include the most famous warship of the Royal Navy in WWII - Cunningham's flagship - and to include a sister ship that wasn't even there on 10 June 1940 - seems a very, very odd design decision. The game is not just about 1940 and so I guess, given the counter limitations, they've taken a spread of ships. But Valiant over Warspite? Really? [:(]

[warspite1]

Does anyone know what this counter represents please?

I've noticed that XIII Corps HQ arrives shortly. This unit is part of that corps. I thought it was some kind of HQ but it seems not. I am not familiar with this NATO symbol. Thanks.

[larryfulkerson]

It looks like an HQ unit to me. It's got a command group but what are they going to do with
all those trucks. This is an unusual HQ I grant you. But as long as it's got a command group
we have to take it seriously.

[Olorin]

It is the symbol for higher HQs alright, corps and higher.

The Western Desert HQ is withdrawn and is replaced by the XIII Corps HQ.
Essentially to facilitate a title change that happened irl, I think.

[cantona2]

ORIGINAL: Olorin

It is the symbol for higher HQs alright, corps and higher.

The Western Desert HQ is withdrawn and is replaced by the XIII Corps HQ.
Essentially to facilitate a title change that happened irl, I think.

Yep pretty much

X=Brigade
XX=Division
XXX=Corps
XXXX=Army
XXXXX=Army Group

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

A question to the designers.

Where is this Lady in the game please? [&:]

The OOB came directly from the SPI game of the same name. It didn't have the HMS Warspite in it. Probably lots of ships came and went throughout the campaign, and they had a counter budget.

warspite1

Counter restrictions for board games were (are) unfortunate but understandable, but to not include the most famous warship of the Royal Navy in WWII - Cunningham's flagship - and to include a sister ship that wasn't even there on 10 June 1940 - seems a very, very odd design decision. The game is not just about 1940 and so I guess, given the counter limitations, they've taken a spread of ships. But Valiant over Warspite? Really? [:(]

I get some criticism for including the ships at all. They weren't continuously used for shore bombardment, as they will be in the scenario. They were mostly there for control of the Med from the Italian fleet - something that's been abstracted in the scenario.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Olorin

It is the symbol for higher HQs alright, corps and higher.

The Western Desert HQ is withdrawn and is replaced by the XIII Corps HQ.
Essentially to facilitate a title change that happened irl, I think.

warspite1

Yes the change was essentially a re-naming of the Western Desert Force (WDF) - so was a bit non-plussed as to why there would be a 'new' HQ arriving. This, combined with their being no HQ on the counter - but instead a red and blue Battenburg type arrangement - made me wonder what this counter was all about.

But that seems clear so thanks all.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



The OOB came directly from the SPI game of the same name. It didn't have the HMS Warspite in it. Probably lots of ships came and went throughout the campaign, and they had a counter budget.

warspite1

Counter restrictions for board games were (are) unfortunate but understandable, but to not include the most famous warship of the Royal Navy in WWII - Cunningham's flagship - and to include a sister ship that wasn't even there on 10 June 1940 - seems a very, very odd design decision. The game is not just about 1940 and so I guess, given the counter limitations, they've taken a spread of ships. But Valiant over Warspite? Really? [:(]

I get some criticism for including the ships at all. They weren't continuously used for shore bombardment, as they will be in the scenario. They were mostly there for control of the Med from the Italian fleet - something that's been abstracted in the scenario.

warspite1

Why did you get criticism Curtis Lemay? Were you involved in the board game or TOAW? If so then there should never be any criticism for including the naval aspect [;)] One of the reasons I am not interested in the Desert War 1940-42 game being developed is because there is no naval (as far as I know - and no campaign game). But I saw naval units included here and that was enough to suck me in [:)].

[warspite1]

Turn 6 - Round 1
28th December 1940

The initial moves progress well as elements of the 70th Infantry Division cut through the Italian units southwest of Sollum. This allows the rest of the division plus all non-Australian units to head southwest to try and cut-off the Cirene and Marmarcia Divisions.

The Regia Aeronautica attacks sundry units and I see that most of the RAF, RAAF and FF units are set to rest. Presumably this is automatic after a period of reorganisation?

Four attacks are announced in this first round, but although the odds look good, the forecast is not great....

[warspite1]

Turn 6 - Round 1 & 2
28th December 1940

I think I was right to go with the odds and not the forecast.

Note the first combat. This happened when the Australian brigade moved across the Italian artillery's hex. Ouch.

[warspite1]

Turn 6 - Round 3 & 4
28th December 1940

With the last Italian resistance ended east of Buq Buq, the 9th Australian Division are sent back east along the coast road. They will be used to counter any moves by the Saharan detachment. Maybe a bit of a waste of resources but I don't want those pesky Italians causing panic in the rear!

Five attacks are ordered:

Major-General Mackay orders a reinforced brigade - with supporting artillery to assault Bardia, while the rest of the division attack the approaches to the south.

7th Armoured also launch two attacks against the dogged Marmarcia Division defenders.

The fifth and final attack comes courtesy of the 22nd Guards Brigade, supported by artillery, against a battalion of the Cirene Division furthest east of the new Italian defensive line.

At Bardia General Annibale Bergonzoli receives a message from Mussolini, exhorting the troops under his command to fight to the last. Bergonzoli replies 'In Bardia we are, and here we stay'....

The fighting around the fortress proves to be a comedy of errors. The defenders of the fort are battered into submission by the expert aim of the Australian Field Artillery. Despite 'Electric Beard's words, his Italian troops retreat in the face of such a barrage. But the infantry is slow to exploit the success. Meanwhile the main Australian force smash through the southern approaches to the fort - once again causing mayhem amongst the defenders. But the Italians re-group and instead of surrendering, are able to enter the deserted fortress ahead of the Australians attacking from the east.... It's not known just how hard Major-General Mackay laughed upon hearing the news.

[warspite1]

Turn 6 - Round 5
28th December 1940

The fight for Bardia begins anew, while the noose starts to tighten around the neck of the Italian units north of Fort Maddelenna.

Er....what the hell?

I've lost the Free French fighters to a ahem, furball..... are we in larryfulkerson's ICBM territory here?

[larryfulkerson]

So sorry to hear about your furball. It's not rare for that to happen either. There's never much in the way of details
for what happened in the furball just the fact that there were some losses. Great. Thanks. I'd like to see a full
combat report about it. There's not much you can do to prevent furballs either. You can't move your fighters to the
rear, they would be useless there. If you leave them at the front you risk getting into a furball. It''s a judgement
call I guess. I usually play it by ear. If my fighters are losing I like to move them to the rear and keep them
altogether for mutual support. Like the Germans in WWII ( Europe ) where they are vastly outnumbered and there's
no place to go for safety. I try to use my aircraft manually to target things instead of hoping they will fly
the proper mission. I like to attack a low-risk target just to improve the experience level ( proficiency ) of
fighter units Like an enemy arty unit. Not much AA and it's an important target. Fighters fly their attack
mission and gain a tiny amount of experience and their proficiency grows slowly. I set up a program one time
playing Pacific At War where I set up a training center at Attu and flew bombing missions over Kiska
just for the experience gain. When the planes reach 100% proficiency they graduate. It was pretty cool.
Horrible out of the way location however. I wanted to set up a training program at Rabaul bombing Port Moresby
for the same effect. I don't remember if it ever worked out or not.

[warspite1]

I looked in the manual and searched furball - nothing. Did a word search of the documentation - nothing. This is why I wondered if it was an ICBM-type anomaly.

This all the 'information' there is. I have no idea what a furball is, why it happened or what I can do to prevent it. This unit was only a few fighters. But can this - whatever this is - happen to a larger, more important formation?

[warspite1]

Turn 6 - Round 7
28th December 1940

The turn is petering out but there are still some important objectives to be taken.

The 6th Australian Division have been ordered to make one more push to destroy the remaining Italian resistance around Bardia.

To the south attacks are ordered to break the resistance of the remaining Italians around El Hamra, while a battalion of Welsh infantry and a regiment of tanks from the 8th Hussars head west to try and link up with 70th Infantry to the north.

As usual I won't be able to provide analysis before the turn moves on automatically, but I can see that Bardia is now free of Italian forces - other than prisoners....

[warspite1]

Turn 6 - Axis Turn
28th December 1940

General Wavell sends a strongly worded message to Air Commodore Collishaw. Something to the effect " What the hell is going on with the RAF?".

The Regia Aeronautica appears to have free range of the battlefield when it comes to air superiority. Their bombers launch no less than four bombing sweeps against RAF airfields - 10 Blenheim's lost or damaged on the ground.

[warspite1]

Turn 6 - Axis Turn
28th December 1940

The Australians are suffering from their exertions at Bardia and are under threat from the 4th Libyan Division.

Meanwhile the Sirte Division are likely heading southeast to join up with the advance elements of the Sabratha Division.

Mmmmmm......

[warspite1]

Turn 7
1st January 1941

Happy New Year from the Western Desert.....

With the arrival of the New Year its probably time to take a proper look at the Commonwealth forces, supply levels, planned reinforcements, withdrawals, the air force and the navy.

I am slightly up on historical in terms of capturing Bardia. Tobruk fell on the 22nd January so that is my next target, although historically the Regia Aeronautica was largely shot by now and I suspect the enemy presence near Fort Maddelenna was not as strong as it is here.

Expected Reinforcements

After the units mentioned below there is not too much in the way of withdrawals or arrivals for a while, so I will plan with what I have on map.