Matrix Games Forums

Uxbridge,
 
While I don't have access to the source information (I am at work, and I don't know if I still even own the book), but I have read a very scholarly work on specifically the supply situation in N. Africa.  The tonnes of supply reaching Tripoli, compared to the tonnes shipped is quite telling.  In fact the book mentioned several times how reluctant the Italian Merchant marine was to actually even attempt the crossing because of how many ships they were losing, as well as reluctance of the squadrons at the Taranto Aerodrome to fly escort considering how often they were savaged by squadrons flying from Malta.
 
In any case though, the size of forces deployed to NA was limited by supply, whether its mainly the amount reaching Tripoli or the 1000 mi long route it took to the front is not nearly as important as the fact the Axis troops in NA were barely adequately supplied at their force levels, and another German Corp was something Rommel desperately needed, but could not have because of supply.

Sir Uxbridge is right !

Here's the article link

http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/JanFeb01/MS610.htm


I read this article years ago, but then forgot about it !

Thanks, Ux ! [&o]

Wastelands, at least in North Africa, there should be a severe attrition on Axis supply lines from Tripoli to
the front line somewhere in Egypt !

Benghazi and Tobruk ports should not be sources of supply for Axis armies in Egypt.

I'm a military writer. In 2003 I released a book about Malta, and in writing that I went through quite a lot of documents regarding the supply question. In the beginning I was rather convinced that I would only confirm the general view. But after some time, I realised that it was a lot more to it. I don't deny that many ships went down, but it wasn't enough. If Rommel had stayed in Tripolitania instead of rushing hell for leather in search of fame and glory, his supply situation would have been much better than for the average army in Russia. Thanks for showing me this article, Champaigne; I hadn't seen it before. [:)]
 
But as I said before, that Malta didn't quite do it in reality, shall not mean that it can't be done in the game.

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

Hard Sarge has it right. The pace of the game in North Africa should be dictated by sea transport. Convoys and troop shipments.

The Allies have to hit the Italian convoys/stps in order to restrict Italian strength. They have to keep Malta, and they have to play hard to hold on to or take back Gibraltar.

In RtV there was indeed a Malta event which struck approx 1/3 of the turns, cutting Axis supply. Isn't that still in ToW?

The only other restriction in North Africa should really be terrain. I advocated addition of the impassable Qatar Depression near El Alemain. It's my understanding that unit effectiveness is drastically reduced there in ToW, but I haven't tested that.

I figured out a cunning way to create the Quattara depression if you like. Open the countries.csv and choose one country that is present in the list but have no influence in the current game. I picked Uruguay. Rename this country "Impassable" or whatever you think proper. That done go to the Ed in the Editor folder. Then open the scenario you like to change from within this program, choose the "hex ownership" tab and find the country Impassable. Now you can mark any hex on the map that you think should be impassable to land units. Since no player can declare war on Impassable, no one can enter this country's hexes.

I figured out a cunning way to create the Quattara depression if you like. Open the countries.csv and choose one country that is present in the list but have no influence in the current game. I picked Uruguay. Rename this country "Impassable" or whatever you think proper. That done go to the Ed in the Editor folder. Then open the scenario you like to change from within this program, choose the "hex ownership" tab and find the country Impassable. Now you can mark any hex on the map that you think should be impassable to land units. Since no player can declare war on Impassable, no one can enter this country's hexes.

Marvelous [&o]

I read somewhere that the Desert Air Force took a huge toll on Axis supply convoys and supply and fuel dumps and that the Axis had a lack of AA weapons to counter this as most of the 88s were at the frontline filling Matilda's full of hole's

Yes. You read correctly. The Axis supply convoys had to travel down one narrow road that hugged the coast. Not only that, but, these convoys kicked up huge dust clouds that could be seen from many miles away. It was easy for an airplane or a "Rat Patrol jeep" to interdict that skinny little road.

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

I figured out a cunning way to create the Quattara depression if you like. Open the countries.csv and choose one country that is present in the list but have no influence in the current game. I picked Uruguay. Rename this country "Impassable" or whatever you think proper. That done go to the Ed in the Editor folder. Then open the scenario you like to change from within this program, choose the "hex ownership" tab and find the country Impassable. Now you can mark any hex on the map that you think should be impassable to land units. Since no player can declare war on Impassable, no one can enter this country's hexes.

Marvelous [&o]

If Doomie is beginning to worship me instead of the opposite, my place in the world must have taken a snap for the better.

GW, you didn't miss this tip, did you?

One thing I don't like is that you can move a naval transport from Italy to Tripoli in one move and unload, with no chance of interception. The Axis have no trouble placing and withdrawing troops and there's zero attrition.

It doesn't matter what's in Malta or what Allied fleets are doing where.

While I shamelessly abuse that fact, I agree that being able to slip in by may be a bit overpowering. However, as mentioned before, it's really the supply situation that seems to make it unreasonable. If there's a way to make the supplies more limited (either through malta or making the long supply line more difficult) then that would probably help.

While it might be different against a human I am not certain, but once the French are defeated it doesn't seem hard to keep an Axis fleet in the central med to keep supply open.  Italy has very little to do with its air force other than to fly it over the central med, they can probably afford a couple German air units also (the 4 air divisions seem handy for this).  Along with the Italian fleet they can contest the Med quite well if the Germans commit to a U-Boat campain along with the occasional surface raider.  The Brits cannot afford to stack the central med, so the Italians can actually keep a modicum of supplies flowing into N Africa.  Combine that with effortless shipping of units to Tripoli, I believe Italy is MUCH harder to deal with in N. Africa than they should be.

We have already make some nice events that without Malta it won't be so easy for Axis.

Ahhh are these events in the next patch?  Or have I just missed them up to now?  I've only played Italy 3 times

They are made for the patch, so remember to have Regia Marina ready

Interestingly as my North Africa front develops, I am much less concerned about this issue as long as you let the AI handle Italy.  I agree that as a player controlled nation, it probably is a bit easy but letting the italian AI handle it, it does have the back and forth ebb and flow like it did historically.  I haven't been pushed back much but I've certainly had my supplies cut off many times halting my advance.
 
I hope whatever your solution is, it doesn't make it impossible for the AI to handle North Africa for the Italians because not everyone will want to control every nation.  And right now it is 'close' to feeling right.  I think the issue is as a player, it's just easier for them to beat or contain the English navy thus making the whole theatre too easy.