Axis in Africa

[Cameraeye]

With v1.16.03, the supply situation for the Axis in Africa is now a huge nightmare. Is it just a question of having more HQs? What should the Axis strategy be? Any feedback will be appreciated.

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: Hartmann301
With v1.16.03, the supply situation for the Axis in Africa is now a huge nightmare. Is it just a question of having more HQs? What should the Axis strategy be? Any feedback will be appreciated.

Two Italian HQs and Rommel should work...? You should be able to keep two HQs on resources so they are 5 (8) most of the time and then the third HQ gets boosted by one of the others to be 5 (8) as well.

The Allies can try to strat-bomb, bombard and blockade but this is a very inefficient strategy.

[shawkhan2]

Taking Malta after France is what I usually do. With 6 Med/Tac and a para it generally only takes a turn or two.
Then two HQs work fine.

[Cameraeye]

ORIGINAL: The Land

ORIGINAL: Hartmann301
With v1.16.03, the supply situation for the Axis in Africa is now a huge nightmare. Is it just a question of having more HQs? What should the Axis strategy be? Any feedback will be appreciated.

The Allies can try to strat-bomb, bombard and blockade but this is a very inefficient strategy.

I wouldn't say that. It's been very efficient in my games.

[Cameraeye]

ORIGINAL: shawkhan2

Taking Malta after France is what I usually do. With 6 Med/Tac and a para it generally only takes a turn or two.
Then two HQs work fine.

Yes of course. I always take Malta after France.

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: Hartmann301

ORIGINAL: The Land

ORIGINAL: Hartmann301
With v1.16.03, the supply situation for the Axis in Africa is now a huge nightmare. Is it just a question of having more HQs? What should the Axis strategy be? Any feedback will be appreciated.

The Allies can try to strat-bomb, bombard and blockade but this is a very inefficient strategy.

I wouldn't say that. It's been very efficient in my games.

That's interesting - on both sides in MP I've found it both expensive and not very effective. Expensive because the Axis has fighters with higher readiness and possibly better technology so the air war is costly, while shore bombardment means warships take hits without inflicting any MPP damage in return. Not very effective because there are a whole bunch of resources, and HQ supply boosting is pretty powerful, so you have to sustain a high level of damage to most of the resources in order to slow down the Afrika Corps much.

But I'd be interested to hear how you've made it work!

[Cameraeye]

ORIGINAL: The Land

ORIGINAL: Hartmann301

ORIGINAL: The Land



The Allies can try to strat-bomb, bombard and blockade but this is a very inefficient strategy.

I wouldn't say that. It's been very efficient in my games.

That's interesting - on both sides in MP I've found it both expensive and not very effective. Expensive because the Axis has fighters with higher readiness and possibly better technology so the air war is costly, while shore bombardment means warships take hits without inflicting any MPP damage in return. Not very effective because there are a whole bunch of resources, and HQ supply boosting is pretty powerful, so you have to sustain a high level of damage to most of the resources in order to slow down the Afrika Corps much.

But I'd be interested to hear how you've made it work!

No me, my opponents. I'm an axis player.