Matrix Games Forums

I would like to remove the port status of Tobruk. If I delete it's line in sea nodes, remove all reference lines to it in sea nodes and change it to "1" (city) in cities, will it then be a normal city? Or are there some hard-codes lurking under the hood, making the game crash if I do this?

Nothing is hard-coded about cities types/locations/etc. Editing scenario csv files (remember of fleets) should work.

But...it was a port. Not a very good one, but still.
 

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

But...it was a port. Not a very good one, but still.

Amen! There are far worse ports in France and Italy, not to mention all over the Med!

Good.

Does this mean that I can do it in reverse? Create a port in cities (using a city), give it entrance and exit to a sea zone in sea edges and add it to sea nodes?

I tried that in RtV, but it didn't work out as expected. But I now realize what I might have done wrong. [8|]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

But...it was a port. Not a very good one, but still.

A very small one. I was trying to simulate the NA-supply problems by moving the intermediate port in NA from Tobruk to the much larger Benghazi. But it failed. I hadn't counted with the convoy effect. If the Axis have a convoy to Benghazi and Rommel lands a bratwurst there, all conected hexes in NA is suddenly filled with bratwurst.

I toyed with the idea to remove the ports altogether, having the Italians to move units by amphibious movement, but this would prohibit movement in the other direction. So, it just can't be done. I give up! [:(]

My present idea is to use our old solution, making some of the Italian army into the Afrika Korps and forbidding German units to enter NA. With the presently much higher LWD of the Germans, and full supply all the way to India, the Germans would quickly snatch the British oil hexes in the Middle East and the boost to German economy would quickly off-set the cost of sending some units to NA. This must be blocked. Creating a number of very powerful Italian units, locking them for a part of the game and making Rommel into an Italian general is therefore the cause to follow.

Unless I can come up with something else ... [8|]

Uxbridge, highly recommend Martin van Creveld's Supplying War on this and related topics. As I recall Tobruk was decent enough and could handle 3000 tons of cargo a day theoretically, but the Germans never got much out of it due to Allied interdiction. The British, on the other hand, we very much able to take advantage of Tobruk as a port and kept it supplied and reinforced for months when it was beseiged in 1941.
 
The thing that crippled Axis logistics in Africa more than anything else was lack of overland transport and especially railroads. The Italians never did get around to building a proper railroad in Libya and they ultimately paid the price for that oversight in colonial management. Motor transport became grotesquely inefficient in hauling supplies over the long Libyan coast as the trucks themselves consumed massive amounts of fuel getting to the front.
 
Even if the Germans had gotten Tobruk to handle the amount of shipping it could in theory, it was a very very long haul for them overland from there to Alexandria.
 
The more sober elements of the German general staff actually understood this, and Halder never believed that Africa could support more than a limited German commitment. Rommel, for all his gifts, never really did get this and was no logistician. He mostly just blamed the Italians for an impossible supply situation, thinking the source of his troubles was in Rome. It wasn't. Adequate supplies got to Africa via convoy. It was getting them from port to front that was the problem, and that problem probably was insoluble, and the problem was completely calculable and predictable.
 
In game terms I'm not quite sure how to simulate this. But it isn't by ports. Possibly hard code x number of Axis divisions drawing supply from NA ports, and any number beyond x is considered unsupplied. X would be a very small number, by the way, no more than 20 in my estimation (and that includes Italians and Germans.) So you wouldn't get these vast Axis hordes swarming North Africa. This isn't quite right for the Vichy territories, which had better infrastructure to handle supplies, but would be better for Libya/Egypt.

Ux is up to a very interesting project, getting the game to preform more historicaly by making small but significant ahistorical changes (Spain in the comintern, individual resource hexes belonging to other countries, etc, etc.)

Kind of sets my teeth on end also, but I cant wait to see how it works out! We all need to dragoon him to AAR this project, for the good of the world.

Sorry that I forgot what you were up to Uxbridge -- can't wait to see what you're up to next. BTW, the Italian idea is extraordinary! Push on!

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Uxbridge, highly recommend Martin van Creveld's Supplying War on this and related topics. As I recall Tobruk was decent enough and could handle 3000 tons of cargo a day theoretically, but the Germans never got much out of it due to Allied interdiction. The British, on the other hand, we very much able to take advantage of Tobruk as a port and kept it supplied and reinforced for months when it was beseiged in 1941.

The thing that crippled Axis logistics in Africa more than anything else was lack of overland transport and especially railroads. The Italians never did get around to building a proper railroad in Libya and they ultimately paid the price for that oversight in colonial management. Motor transport became grotesquely inefficient in hauling supplies over the long Libyan coast as the trucks themselves consumed massive amounts of fuel getting to the front.

Even if the Germans had gotten Tobruk to handle the amount of shipping it could in theory, it was a very very long haul for them overland from there to Alexandria.

The more sober elements of the German general staff actually understood this, and Halder never believed that Africa could support more than a limited German commitment. Rommel, for all his gifts, never really did get this and was no logistician. He mostly just blamed the Italians for an impossible supply situation, thinking the source of his troubles was in Rome. It wasn't. Adequate supplies got to Africa via convoy. It was getting them from port to front that was the problem, and that problem probably was insoluble, and the problem was completely calculable and predictable.

In game terms I'm not quite sure how to simulate this. But it isn't by ports. Possibly hard code x number of Axis divisions drawing supply from NA ports, and any number beyond x is considered unsupplied. X would be a very small number, by the way, no more than 20 in my estimation (and that includes Italians and Germans.) So you wouldn't get these vast Axis hordes swarming North Africa. This isn't quite right for the Vichy territories, which had better infrastructure to handle supplies, but would be better for Libya/Egypt.

Thanks for the advice regarding Creveld. As it happens, I have written a book of myself on this issue, where I partly used Creveld as a source. [:)]

Tobruk could, if not subjected to any enemy activity, take about 1 500 tons a day. It was the same for Tripoli. Benghazi was the largest port, capable of taking close to 3 000. You're spot on when it comes to the problems with transporting supply, but I can't find any way of simulating this. Neither can I work on your suggestion since, as you say, it has to be hard-coded. I will therefore make an Italian DAK-contingent. They will be way ahead in tech (as a substitute for combat efficiency), but will have to accept labouring under Italian LWD. They will be locked in place in Italy until late 1940. I have changed the central port in NA to Benghazi. That way it will take some time for the Axis units to reach the front.

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

Ux is up to a very interesting project, getting the game to preform more historicaly by making small but significant ahistorical changes (Spain in the comintern, individual resource hexes belonging to other countries, etc, etc.)

Kind of sets my teeth on end also, but I cant wait to see how it works out! We all need to dragoon him to AAR this project, for the good of the world.

Sorry that I forgot what you were up to Uxbridge -- can't wait to see what you're up to next. BTW, the Italian idea is extraordinary! Push on!

No I will not write an AAR. That's definite. [:-]

But I'm beginning to ponder upon testing this scenario with a higher number than our usual three. This has suddenly been more important since one of us can't play until the beginning of next year. A six-player game would be very interesting. It could thus be:

Player 1. Germany
Player 2. UK
Player 3. France
Player 4. USSR, Poland
Player 5. Italy and Axis minors (Finland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Greece)
Player 6. USA and Western minors (Belgium, Netherlands, Romania, Scandinavian countries)

Once France is gone, player six reverse to play the Western minors.

We could add a 7th player, who recieves a copy of the 6th players file, and who's mission it is to only write the AAR.

I would be highly interested in playtesting this if you're looking for volunteers.
 
What is this book you've written called? Sounds like something I'd like to read. Well, if it is in English anyways, since I don't know a lick of Swedish...
 
 

Sorry, it's in Swedish. The only books we have translated to English is about Bismarck and Tirpitz (Tamelander/Zetterling).
 
If we're going to try the mod, I'm sure we can find a place for you.