Tank Warfare Tunisia 1943

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I'd like to see some early War games set in Africa, say seige of and earlier Tobruk, Compass or El Alamein. Something where the DAK and Rommel are at the height of their powers and then something where the Allies start to take the upper hand (Alamein. Plus some alternatives like Rommel being reinforced with more troops and supplies when digging in around Alamein. Or reinforced when on the back foot etc say because the decision was to concentrate on Africa instead of invading Russia (Maybe with the idea that once they take Africa and onto the middle East they then consider an attack on Russian from two fronts, both through Poland and then also up through the belly from the Mid East. Utilising all the Oil capture din the Mid East plus a short hop to Maikop fields aswell)..

warspite1

Yes, it would be great to see early Desert War battles. And instead of all the 'what-ifs' being geared to the Axis 'having fun' it would be great to see some 'what-ifs' for the Commonwealth forces. Examples being:

- earlier re-armament so that some KGV and Illustrious-class enter the Mediterranean earlier, or
- Churchill, gambling that the invasion of the UK will not happen, decides the priority is kicking Italy out of North Africa before the Germans can stabilise the situation. No half-arsed campaigns in Greece - it's straight to Tripoli after Compass.

Why do the Axis get all the fun?

Anyway, that aside:

- Then there is Spain joining Germany and in return for an 'easy' hit on Gibraltar, there is the potential for a bun fight that starts with the Spanish fighting Vichy units in Morocco, Italy landing in Vichy Tunisia!

As to what happens if Egypt falls - that is an interesting one. The Commonwealth would fall back on a line from East Africa-Aden-India and would block the Suez Canal. The Axis won't be getting any oil from installations in Iraq for at least a year as these will be destroyed. The loss of Iraqi oil is not a problem for the British, but Persia is perhaps more of a worry here as Persian oil feed the Far Eastern Empire inc Australasia. Whether the Germans get access to it though is another thing.

a) this is a long way from their supply lines
b) the position of Uncle Joe and the Soviet Union is now less certain. Stalin thought the Germans and Western Allies would fight themselves to a standstill, but in this scenario the Germans are now effectively surrounding the USSR.... suddenly Stalin may be feeling a little less smug and is perhaps willing to move into Persia himself.
c) an even bigger unknown is how the USA react to all this.

EDIT: Sorry also meant to say, how do they invade the Causacus? Its not a short hop and they need to go either through Turkey or Persia. Neither of these are in the German sphere as per the N-S Pact and Stalin - deal or no deal - is surely not going to stand aside and let Hitler complete his encirclement of the Soviet position in the south. Of course the counter is that the Turks, seeing the British abandon the Mediterranean, decide to join the Germans...

A whole load of what-ifs to be explored there, and at some point America surely would be inclined to to do something?

[Jagdtiger14]

Warspite1:

The Axis won't be getting any oil from installations in Iraq for at least a year as these will be destroyed.

That would be May'41. Assuming the Axis cant get anything going concerning Iraq/Med in the 10 months between the fall of France and the Anglo-Iraqi war (perhaps Britain attacks Iraq sooner, is it ready for that?).

Other issues of interest would be Cyprus and Syria.

Adding to the what-if's for the Axis: Germany no Battle of Britain. Perhaps more limited in attempting to control the English Channel, or nothing at all and sending all that air power into the Med.

[Ranger33]

I still haven't managed to crack the enigma of the Graviteam Tactics UI. I have Operation Star and a bunch of the additional campaigns from when they were on sale, I like the graphics, the scale is amazing, the dynamic campaign is top notch, etc. But every time I play I still feel completely at a loss about what is going on and whether I'm even close to playing correctly.

Need to take one more crack at it I suppose, third time's the charm.

[Rosseau]

Similar for me. I have all their games for years, but need to commit the time to master - and remember! - all the functions. What always happens is I wing it, enjoy the battles, and leave, as AI can take care of itself pretty good. Combat Mission is more micro-intensive but I understand it. It just took about 17 years since Beyond Overlord [;)]

But the ultimate challenge will be preparing for Operational Art of War IV.

[Ranger33]

ORIGINAL: rosseau

Similar for me. I have all their games for years, but need to commit the time to master - and remember! - all the functions. What always happens is I wing it, enjoy the battles, and leave, as AI can take care of itself pretty good. Combat Mission is more micro-intensive but I understand it. It just took about 17 years since Beyond Overlord [;)]

But the ultimate challenge will be preparing for Operational Art of War IV.

My experience exactly. I feel the same about Combat Mission, I've sunk so much time into it that their system feels obvious, when a total newbie might be quite lost, especially on the finer points of LOS and such.

Oddly, I didn't find Operational Art of War 3 to be all that difficult to play when I first learned, but then I took a few months off and forgot everything [:D]. Hoping the new version will be streamlined in that regard, those hundreds of scenarios covering everything you could possibly want sure are enticing.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Warspite1:

The Axis won't be getting any oil from installations in Iraq for at least a year as these will be destroyed.

That would be May'41.

warspite1

Sorry, what is May 1941?

Assuming the Axis cant get anything going concerning Iraq/Med in the 10 months between the fall of France and the Anglo-Iraqi war (perhaps Britain attacks Iraq sooner, is it ready for that?).

Sorry I don't understand this either. Why are Britain attacking Iraq earlier? For what purpose?

Other issues of interest would be Cyprus and Syria.

Cyprus is of little importance if the British have given up the Eastern Mediterranean. In that scenario the Germans can take the island relatively easily. As for Syria, I guess this depends on what has happened in Spain but Vichy territories turning Free French has to be a more than likely outcome given that, in this scenario, Hitler has started to carve up the French Empire just a month or so after allowing the creation of Vichy....

[Jagdtiger14]

May 1941 = Anglo-Iraqi war.

I was suggesting in response to your "why do the Axis get all the fun", that perhaps Britain can get Iraq (perhaps Syria as well) out of the way earlier quashing any Axis fantasy in that direction. Assuming Britain could get any assets for those operations that early in the war.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

May 1941 = Anglo-Iraqi war.

I was suggesting in response to your "why do the Axis get all the fun", that perhaps Britain can get Iraq (perhaps Syria as well) out of the way earlier quashing any Axis fantasy in that direction. Assuming Britain could get any assets for those operations that early in the war.

warspite1

But the revolt happened in April 1941 when the pro-British regime was subject of a coup d'etat. Why would the British attack earlier i.e. why would they attack a pro-British Government?

As for the assets required, the fighting in May to quell the revolt was undertaken with less than two divisions and a handful of aircraft.

As for getting Syria 'out of the way' as said above, it could well be that they don't have to. If Spain joins the war then Hitler has paid the price, and if Hitler has paid Franco's price then the whole point of Vichy's existence, and Petain's gameplan, has exploded in his face. The writing for Vichy is now clearly written large on the wall in 6 foot high letters. And it doesn't make for pleasant reading....

If not, then things are unlikely to change anyway. The need to take out the Vichy regime in Syria (Operation Exporter) only became apparent when Vichy allowed its airbases to be used to assist the Iraqi uprising. I don't think any early attack on this Vichy territory would have taken place as Wavell just didn't have the troops to spare if he was going to go on the offensive against Graziani.

[budd]

ORIGINAL: Ranger33

ORIGINAL: rosseau

Similar for me. I have all their games for years, but need to commit the time to master - and remember! - all the functions. What always happens is I wing it, enjoy the battles, and leave, as AI can take care of itself pretty good. Combat Mission is more micro-intensive but I understand it. It just took about 17 years since Beyond Overlord [;)]

But the ultimate challenge will be preparing for Operational Art of War IV.

My experience exactly. I feel the same about Combat Mission, I've sunk so much time into it that their system feels obvious, when a total newbie might be quite lost, especially on the finer points of LOS and such.

Oddly, I didn't find Operational Art of War 3 to be all that difficult to play when I first learned, but then I took a few months off and forgot everything [:D]. Hoping the new version will be streamlined in that regard, those hundreds of scenarios covering everything you could possibly want sure are enticing.

Think I'm finally comfortable with the UI. How do I know this, well after not playing for months I jumped back in and knew what I was doing,mostly. Here's a couple of suggestions that helped me. Turn the new order system off, it limits your orders and will frustrate you. Set your battlefield size to limited to start, less units to monitor. Don't try to micro everything. I give most of my orders at start and adjust as the situation develops. Recon to here,move in single line, spread out. Tanks move here, single column along road. My problem was trying to micro everything. The new system since Mius is easier, the manual is better but it still doesn't cover everything. I print screen of the controls and print them out for reference. The basics of orders is select unit, right click on a map location and an order wheel pops up, select your base order by left clicking on it, done, but if you want to set the modifiers for the order right click on the order to open the modifier wheel and select those you want. Once you get a bit comfortable with the system it gets easier but it will take time. The AI does a reasonable job acting on your orders. It's just one of those games where once it clicks, your good to go.

[zakblood]

thanks for the tips, as the UI has always put me off tbh

[Jagdtiger14]

warspite1 But the revolt happened in April 1941 when the pro-British regime was subject of a coup d'etat. Why would the British attack earlier i.e. why would they attack a pro-British Government? As for the assets required, the fighting in May to quell the revolt was undertaken with less than two divisions and a handful of aircraft. As for getting Syria 'out of the way' as said above, it could well be that they don't have to. If Spain joins the war then Hitler has paid the price, and if Hitler has paid Franco's price then the whole point of Vichy's existence, and Petain's gameplan, has exploded in his face. The writing for Vichy is now clearly written large on the wall in 6 foot high letters. And it doesn't make for pleasant reading.... If not, then things are unlikely to change anyway. The need to take out the Vichy regime in Syria (Operation Exporter) only became apparent when Vichy allowed its airbases to be used to assist the Iraqi uprising. I don't think any early attack on this Vichy territory would have taken place as Wavell just didn't have the troops to spare if he was going to go on the offensive against Graziani.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote.

However, there were signs in early '40 when the government changed...to pro-Axis...but not sure that was apparent at first. Later that Summer (fall of France) the Iraqi govt. worked closely with the Italians and something about the Grand Mufti, etc...surely the British knew something was up by then? I'm assuming the Brits either didn't know, and/or didn't have the assets to do anything about it anyway.

If the Axis had accomplished some major victories the second half of '40 in the Med (Gib, Malta), this could have counter balanced the negative things (Libya). The negative results the Axis experienced were a cause for another change in govt. in Iraq.

Originally I was responding concerning: "The Axis wont be getting any oil from installations in Iraq for at least a year as these will be destroyed". I'm wondering when these might have been destroyed? (not saying they wouldn't or couldn't be, just asking). The Brits may have to take out the pro-Axis Iraqi govt. sooner than they did, especially if Axis gains in the Med kept the pro-Axis govt. propped up.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

warspite1 But the revolt happened in April 1941 when the pro-British regime was subject of a coup d'etat. Why would the British attack earlier i.e. why would they attack a pro-British Government? As for the assets required, the fighting in May to quell the revolt was undertaken with less than two divisions and a handful of aircraft. As for getting Syria 'out of the way' as said above, it could well be that they don't have to. If Spain joins the war then Hitler has paid the price, and if Hitler has paid Franco's price then the whole point of Vichy's existence, and Petain's gameplan, has exploded in his face. The writing for Vichy is now clearly written large on the wall in 6 foot high letters. And it doesn't make for pleasant reading.... If not, then things are unlikely to change anyway. The need to take out the Vichy regime in Syria (Operation Exporter) only became apparent when Vichy allowed its airbases to be used to assist the Iraqi uprising. I don't think any early attack on this Vichy territory would have taken place as Wavell just didn't have the troops to spare if he was going to go on the offensive against Graziani.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote.

However, there were signs in early '40 when the government changed...to pro-Axis...but not sure that was apparent at first. Later that Summer (fall of France) the Iraqi govt. worked closely with the Italians and something about the Grand Mufti, etc...surely the British knew something was up by then? I'm assuming the Brits either didn't know, and/or didn't have the assets to do anything about it anyway.

If the Axis had accomplished some major victories the second half of '40 in the Med (Gib, Malta), this could have counter balanced the negative things (Libya). The negative results the Axis experienced were a cause for another change in govt. in Iraq.

Originally I was responding concerning: "The Axis wont be getting any oil from installations in Iraq for at least a year as these will be destroyed". I'm wondering when these might have been destroyed? (not saying they wouldn't or couldn't be, just asking). The Brits may have to take out the pro-Axis Iraqi govt. sooner than they did, especially if Axis gains in the Med kept the pro-Axis govt. propped up.

warspite1

But there is a difference - in gaming terms - between a full blown revolt and a change of Government. Effectively this would be the British steaming in and overthrowing the Government. I am not saying this is impossible, but in gaming terms it means taking out, say a Division and the air assets, to act as occupation troops and a rule that says these units cannot leave the country. The bulk of these troops would be found - perhaps from India so no real effect on the units available to Wavell, while the...ahem...air assets would not have been used in Egypt anyway for their own safety.

As for when the British would destroy the two pipelines and the oil installations, I guess that would be whenever a decision is made that Egypt cannot be held.

Re the Germans counterbalancing the loss of Libya, I think there is a mix of 'what-if' scenarios here. If the British are strong enough to kick the Italians out of Libya before the Germans intervene - even though Hitler has agreed to a Med strategy - then this is Med War fantasy stylee. As you know I desperately want a Med War 1940-43 game and it would be nice to have a choice of a few 'what-ifs' thrown in, but personally, I think that the Med is incredibly interesting even without the 'what-ifs'.

What makes a 'what-if' fun depends on ones outlook and what is acceptable in terms of what they think is historically realistic. I would certainly like to explore a select number of 'what-if' scenarios. But I think there is a point at which such scenarios lose their value.